Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMedimont Subdivision PP (aka Stonebridge)WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President RONALD R. TOLSMA IDIAN F ME EE C R CITY O GLENN R. BE TLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 KEITH BORUP Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning Sz Zoning Commission, please ~ submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 7, 1997 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/16/96 HEARING DATE: 1/14/97 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Medimont Subdivision (to be marketed as Stonebridpel -18 Buildable Lots on 26.11 Acres in a Proposed 1-L Zone BY: Properties West, Inc LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Locust Grove,. South of Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 GREG OSLUND, P2 KEITH BORUP, P2 BOB CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, CIC CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE (PRELIM. ~ FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (PRELIM. 8 FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ~ ~ i REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND/OR FINAL PLAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TIME TABLE FOR 'SUBMISSION: A request far preliminary plat approval must be in the City Clerks possession no later than three days following the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission rill hear the request at the monthly meeting following the month the •request Was made. After a proposal enters the process it may be acted upon at subsequent monthly meetings provided the necessary procedures and documentation are received before 5:00 P. M., Thursday following the Planning and 2aning Commission action. GENERAL INFORMATION Properties West Annexation Medimont Subdivision 1. Name of Annexation and Subdivision, to be marketed as STONEBRIDGE BUSINES~ PARK 2. General Location, south of Franklin Rd. west of Locust GGrove d 3. Owners of record. Properties West Inc. Address. 1401 Shoreline Dr. Zip 83702 Telephone 345-7523 Oise, Idaho 4. Applicant, Same Address, Same 5. Engineer, Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. Firm J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood,_Ave. Address Boise. Idaho . Zip~_Telephone 'i76-7'30 6. Name and address to receive City billings: Name Properties West In 1401 Shoreline Drive Address Boise. Tn s37n2 Telephone 345-7523 PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST: Subdivision Features 26.11 ac in subdivision - ownership 1. Acres ~~ ~n ac in annexation - to center of Franklin Rd YS' buildable 2. Number of lots S ,-„m,~,.., 3. Lots per acre _ 0.59 lots/ac 4. Density per acre0 b9/ac -R'l~x sting - County 5. Zoning Classif ication t s ) IL Re4uested - City . • • 6. If the proposed subdivision is outside the Meridian City Limits but within the jurisdictional mile, what is the existing zoning classification RT 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt No &. Have recreational easements been provided for No 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City No Explain 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? Yes Explain Landscaped lot along Franklin and part of E. boundary For future parks? NO Explain 11. What school (s ) service the area Meridian do you propose any agreements for future school sites No Explain Business use only (light industry) 12. Other proposed amenities to the City NO Weter Supply Fire Department NO Other No . Explain 13. Type or Building (Residential, Commercial, Industrial or combination) Light industrial - business use 14. Type of Dwelling(s) Single Family, Duplexes, Multiplexes. other Concrete tilt up, block, metal, wood frame 15. Proposed Development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot (s) , 41,700 sf b. Minimum square footage of structure(s) N/A c. Are garages provides for, N A square footage d. Are other coverings provided for N/A e. Landscaping has been provided for Yes Describe Along common lots and CCR requirements along entry road (2) ! ~ f. Trees will be provided for Yes Trees will be maintained Yes by Business Owners Association g. Sprinkler systems are provided for Yes - pressurized irrig. h. Are there multiple units No Type remarks i. Are there special set back requirements No Explain Will comply with Code and CCR's ~. Has off street parking been provided for YeS .Explain Parking on each lot to conform to City Code k. Value range of property Unknown 1. Type of financing for development Unknown m. Protective covenants were submitted Yes . Date 11/15/96 16. Does the proposal land lock other property No Does it create Enclaves No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five c5) feet in width. ?. Proposed use is in conformance rith the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development rill comply with City Ordinances. 5. Preliminary Plat_vill include all appropriate easements. 6. Street names must not conflict with City grid system. c3) i w r ! • ! k 8 II i I-+ W ~ ~ II i 1 ...~,. mw n.o. 1 1 I 9 _ .LS'0Lt1 3 .tt,lf.00 N _ OYOY 3AOi10 [SI1J0~ 'f }~ 6 ~~ ".5~~ ~.. ,C1Y0[1 7 .0lAL00 M 1 ii ii ~~ ~~ ~ std ! I~ ~i .• ' 's " ~3 ki 8 '1 n r ;~ t " ~: J 1 ~~ 1 ~~ I - ~; ~ ~~ ~~ i~ .. ~ .. ' s YI w ~~~ ~ ins 21~ ~~fl~ ~~§1~ n e ~ 'AlNf100 vav 'NnaYS7 - ~ g r~/ 01 ~ xn-m-ac ~xv~ ~,rw '~ w e 'a 'w ~oet 'ri- ew rn ew o '~. a - 4 " W ott[-ut-ro= 7x014 AVl/ AYVN/M~91W ok 0, ` • N nt0-00tH ax-O 7fg0 N,t •'~ 9 ~ ~~ ~~ l0i 7[Y1i ~• - 71w7~r OOOYx0770 NLMI/ ML isro «n-• a wvlrau. «xur wry a. Yw•. i .arvw ssewltnw aoawuwoaw. ..x{;,"°~«"~A ,~S:i'"~"& ,: ,~.: ~' . o... $ a ~ ~ ~ ~. +~ ^ 8 •oul "SM33NION3 9-fl-I' sr aua~wvw e• 01 'Nawuawnt 1NOIYIO~M wa m••+r.~. oeoa a. ma su w •w --~--e j . t d s ~ ~ ~ ~ i~' ~ ~~~ r~~~~i i f ~ ~ ~s ~~~ ~~~ ~~ .~ W .~,~ , ., # 0 o r .. o ~~a s~~ ,~~ ,l.l~t ~1~x ~~ ~~ ~d ~l ,:,1.,t ~, Z~ r w ~ r r ~ r • ! ! 1r ~~ - u - B ~ ~~ a p~rvpewctes wes~ --~- clev~el.opr»erz NARRATIVE FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION, an Industrial Development To Be Marketed As: STONEBRIDGE BUSINESS PARK To: City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Prepared by: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. ~G. J-U-B ENGINEERS RE: Medimont Subdivision J-U-B FILE NO.: 11130-02 DATE: November 12, 1996 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is seeking approval for Medimont Subdivision. The subdivision consists of 18 business lots, plus 5 common lots. The business lots will range in size from 41,720 square feet and 75,990 square. feet. The 26.11-acre {gross) property is located south of E. Franklin Road and west of S. Locust Grove Road and is described as a portion of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho. In addition, the parcel is currently situated within Ada County and is contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of Meridian, Idaho. It is currently zoned RT or Rural Transitional. The applicant is also seeking an annexation of the property and zoning of I-L (Light Industrial). GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Mr. Jon L. Barnes Properties West, Inc. 1401 Shoreline Drive Boise, ID 83702 (208) 345-7523 Engineer: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. J-U-B ENGINEERS,. Inc. 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 376-7330 (Voice) 323-9336 (Fax) OWNERSHIP AND SIZE Owners: Properties West, Inc. -Jon L. Barnes, Pres. Gross Plat Area: 26.11 Acres Gross Annex. Area: 26.60 Acres Density: 0.69 Lots per Acre EXISTING ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RT -Ada County PROPOSED ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Light Industrial (IL) -City of Meridian SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE The zoning of the surrounding properties is a mixture of City and County Zones. Light Industrial (IL) is identified north of the site. A Commercial General (CG) lies southwest of the site. Ada County zones exist that are RT to the West, South and East. In addition, there are two smaller R1 Zones situated northwest and southeast of this proposed development. There are six single-family homes on acreages adjacent to a portion of the easterly boundary and two single-family (one rental) homes next to the westerly boundary at the north end of the development. Adjacent land uses include light industrial, agricultural, and residential. -z- INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY The applicant intends to develop an "Upper End" light industrial business park subdivision of 18 buildable lots with 5 common lots. Lots will be constructed and used for light industrial business uses by each lot purchaser. All allowed uses within this development shall be those as specifically permitted or allowed by conditional use as identified within the City of Meridian Zoning Ordinance Title XI, Chapter 2, Section 409. In addition, the applicant will further restrict these approved uses by prohibiting the following uses: Asphalt & Concrete Automobile Wrecking Yard & Storage Fuel Yards Junk Yard Mobile Home Manufacturing Railroad Yard & Shops Recycling Plants Solid Waste Transfer Stations These prohibited uses are defined within the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to be recorded with the final plat. These CCR's have been submitted with the Preliminary Plat/Annexation Request for City review. Also, the developer hereby requests that the City allow this Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat Applications to be approved without a Conditional Use Requirement for each lot and/or use, except as specifically identified within the current City Zoning Ordinance. As a suggestion,. the City could entertain using a Development Agreement to restrict the allowed uses as identified above. This Agreement together with the strict enforcement of the CCR's should provide sufficient controls to the development of these parcels as the City may desire. SEkVICES Transportation: Franklin Road to the north and Eagle Road / I-84 Interchange 1 mile to the east. Fire Protection: Meridian City and Rural Fire Protection District Water: City of Meridian Municipal Water Wastewater: City of Meridian Sewage Disposal Irrigation: Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District thru a privately-owned pressurized irrigation system School District: Meridian School District • STATEMENT OF VARIANCE REQUESTS The applicant is not requesting any variances at this time. STATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FEATURES Easements and right-of-ways are being provided for and dedicated for sewer, water, irrigation, landscaping and roads. Five common landscaped lots are being planned. Two lots are 35 feet wide and situated adjacent to E. Franklin Road at the entrance to the development. These lots will be landscaped and will include a landscaped water amenity that will double as a stormwater detention facility for the street stormwater run-off. Two additional common lots are being provided along Lots 3 thru 10 of Block 3, which will act as a buffer to those residential homes existing along the eastern border of this proposed subdivision. These lots will be 20 feet wide and will include trees and a low maintenance pasture grass ground cover. A chain link fence will be constructed along the west boundary of this lot to further enhance the buffering to the existing residential uses. The adjoining property owners will be able to use and enjoy the landscape buffer with the fence being located in this manner instead of along the easterly property line of the development. A fifth common lot will be situated within S. Medimont Way at the entry to the development. This lot will be a landscaped median that will blend with the adjoining 35-foot landscaped strips. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Two neighborhood meetings were held at the home of Frank and Vernadene Pressley to review the scope of the project, discuss the landscape buffer and other concerns that the adjoining neighbors expressed. The first meeting was held October 7, 1996, and the second was held on October 23, 1996. Some of the major items of neighborhood concern included: How the existing irrigation ditch was going to be handled; what was being planned for the landscaped buffer strip; what type of uses were planned within the development; will an easement be provided for access to the existing power line and the irrigation ditch? Other items discussed included noise, odors, lighting, potential contamination of the groundwater, and general appearance of the proposed uses. As can be seen on the Preliminary Plat and the Conceptual Engineering Plan, we have included a landscape buffer along those lots where the existing homes are located. The 20-foot buffer will also act as a utility and irrigation easement. The ditch will be replaced with an irrigation pipe with individual take-outs for each existing user. -4- The types of uses will be restricted to ones that are more compatible in this general area and will make good neighbors to these concerned property owners. In addition, the project will be controlled by the Developer, Properties West, Inc., during the lot sales and building construction. Also, the CCR's will be in place with policing powers to assist in keeping the development a~high quality business park. It is our opinion that we have adequately addressed the neighborhood concerns. FEES SUBMITTED Subdivision Application 23-lot Subdivision - $300.00 + (23 Lots X $10.00) _ $530.00 Mailings (Certified) - $1.42 X 15 Notices = 21.30 TOTAL SUB. AP. FEES = $551.30 Annexation Application Application Fee- $400.00 + (25.6 Ac. X $15.00) = 784.00 TOTAL ANNEX. AP. FEES = $784.00 TOTAL FEES REQUIRED = $1,335.30 -5- • • ANNEXATION/ZONING REQUEST AFFIDAVIT I, Gary R. Little and Deborah A. Little do hereby certify that we are the record owners of a portion of land described as the "Properties West Annexation" in an application for Annexation & Zoning being submitted to the City of Meridian for consideration. We further state that we hereby officially request annexation of said property into the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho. In addition, we hereby state and certify that the subject property will be posted one week before the public hearing stating that the above-mentioned application with the City of Meridian has been made. Dated this ~a ~ day of November, 1996. By: Gay .Little Deborah A. Little STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) ON THIS 1~~'day of ` ~m-~ , 19 96 ,before me, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared Gary R. Little and Deborah A. Little, known to me to be the person(s) whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. My Notary Commission Expires ~- a ~_ a~ y Notary Bond Expires ~ ~'~- 4 ~ . 19 1 ~'~~ C~ d ~ Q~1i~~~ Notary Pub'~ic for Idaho Residing at ~~c_._. ,Idaho f: \pro jects\ 11130\admin\afflittl. doc • • ANNEXATION/ZONING REQUEST AFFIDAVIT I, Jon L. Barnes; President, and Larry B. Barnes, Secretary, of Properties West, Inc., do hereby certify that we are the record owners of a portion of land described as the "Properties West Annexation" in an application for Annexation & Zoning being submitted to the City of Meridian for consideration. We further state that we hereby officially request annexation of said property into the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho. In addition, we hereby state and certify that the subject property will be posted one week before the public hearing stating that the above-mentioned application with the City of Meridian has been made. Dated this ~ 2 ~ day of November, 1996. By: PRRTIE~j V!i~, INC. President Larry B. STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) ON THIS 1~ day of /~ ~,~~~~„ j,~,- , 19 9 [,, ,before me, a notary public in and for said State, appeared Jon L. Barnes and Larry B. Barnes, known to me to be the President and Secretary of Properties West, Inc., who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. My Notary Commission Expires a ~- Oo? My Notary Bond Expires 3 ~~ ooZ 19_. Notary Pdblic for Idaho Residing at ~~-c-~c_./ ,Idaho N O V- 1 3- 9 6 WED 1 8 5 8 LITTLE P®~ ( . 95i)9323G . p `- r , A PlontNr Compnny ~• t1IS :~. ' , ; ~r,i f; i c 0 PIONEER TITLE COMPANY B o t S E l pRADACOUNTV PIONE>:R TITLE 8151 W, Rifleman Ave /Boise, Idaho 83704 / (208) 377 ~ aoP~ pcAo apo aPpaOVt:o 91t ~ r ~'~ RECOkUt:ti AT IC'{@C i:ST OF 'UVARRANTY DCCD RNDlVIDUALa FOR VALUl3 RECEIVED NORMAN W. BROWN AND JANET C, BROWN, IiUSBAND AND WIFE Grantor ^ . do bercby grout, bargain, sill and convey untoOARY R. LITTLE AND DEBORAH A, MILL5, B02H UNMARRIED PERSONS the Grantee s ,whose cunsnt address ls; 38.5 S, LOCUSx GROVE ROAD, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 the followltt8 described real property !A ADA County, State oPldaho, more partieulary described as followa, to•wit: SEE ATTACHED EX~tIBIT "A" WHICH BY THis RGFERENCB Is INCORPORA~rED HEREiN AND MADE A PART OF TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtcnancw unto the said Gra,uce sand Grancce hdn and assigns forever, And the stud Grantor oho hereby covenant to and with the said Granfco a ,the Grantor a ats!o the owner s In tee simple of said premtscs; that said prcmisra aro free from all cncutnbrancea, EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee g and subJcct to reservatlons, restrictions, dedications, easements, rights of way tool agrcemencs, (if any) of record, and general taxes and aasessmcau, (ineludq Irrigation ant utility assexstncnts, (ilany) for the cutrcnt year, witich are nut yet Aue ,vtd payable, and ti,at Grantor s will Warrant and defend the s,'ttac from alt lawful elaitns whatsoever, STATE OF ~DAF1o ,County of,~D,~~` ~ ~, On this __7,B___day of ~ae.ombo,>`_, !n t}u: year y ppearod ..~TOaMnK V. I3R~L•rN aN.ILaI~DI ,e'~~ known or identified to me to be flu: person tt~lb~hosc ttckttowledgcd to ttte that .zltt~cxccutcd the Ssmcr '*r ~ ~~ -i Ld " ~ ~ Z 7~ ~'. n me . 2FiE,,UND.,ERSICT3ED ._.... _.. , a notary public, pcr- ~_subscritxd to the within instrument, and R1Y Comrni's11U'~1'~zpires~ .0<,!n` ~°,g A Pioneer Company PIONEER TITLE COMPANY OF ADA COUNTY 8151 W. Rifleman Ave /Boise, Idaho 83704 / (208) 377-2700&f READ AND APPROVED flM1f WARRANTY DEED tcotteoRATt: FoxM> IVADCO , INC . , a corporation organized and existing undo the laws of the State of Idaho, with its principal office u 4232 ADAMS BOISE, ID 83714 of County of ADA ,State of Idaho, grantor, hereby CONVEYS or GRANTS and WARRANTS TO PROPERTIES WEST, INC. grantee of 1401 SHORELINE DR. , BOISE, ID 83702 for the sum of TEN DOLLARS AND NO/100 DOLLARS, the following described tract(s) of land in ADA County, State of Idaho: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF Location of above described property * nritcm r_nnvc ,c. ro.urrT TN House No. Street The officers who sign this deed hereby certify that this deed and the transfer represented thereby was duly authorized under a resolution duly adopted by the board of directors of the grantor at a lawful meeting duly held and attended by a quorum. In witness whereof, the grantor has caused its corporate Warne and seal to be heremtto affixed by its duly authorized officers this 13 day of March , A.D. 1996 IVADCO INC (CORPORATE NAME) On this 13 day of March , in the year of 1996 , before me DAVID E. SELLS a notary public, per- sonally appeared ~ZF• c MCCLURE AND 1 A DONAT.D , Itnown or ide o~p t~~jhc person S3vlto executed the instrutucnt on behalf of said co ion, and wledged to me that ie~ed the same. ~11sn~ '~~~~ t * ~.... ~ s N Public: ~ d~yOtl ~ Residing at: 'a .n'•._ .•,. _' My Commission Expires: 1 -2E-99 STATE OF IDAHO ,County of ADA , ss. • ~~-uJ Engineers Surveyors Planners Project: 11130 Date: November 8, 1996 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION A PORTION OF LAND WITHIN SECTION 18, T.3N., R.lE., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A portion of land within the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly as follows: Commencing at a found brass cap at the section corner common to Sections 7, 8, 17 and 18 of T.3N., R.lE., B.M., at the center line intersection of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road; thence Westerly along the center line of said Franklin Road and the section line common to Sections 17 and 18, South 89°46'18" West 480.70 feet; thence leaving: said center line and said section line South 02°14'38" East 25.02 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of said Franklin Road and a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 02°14'38" East 162.38 feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South 00°58'43" West 494.50 feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South 19°08'17" East 135.59 feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South O1°25'43" West 520.56 feet to a found iron pin on the North 1/16 line of said Section 18; thence South 89°39'40" West 888.27 feet along the said 1/16 line of said Section 18 to the NE 1/16 corner of said section, from which 'a found 5/8" rebar bears North 00°29'39" East 0.25 feet; thence North 00°29'39" East 1,307.10 feet along said East 1/16 line to a point on the South right-of-way of said Franklin Road and a set 5/8" rebar with plastic cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence North 89°46'18" East 847.60 feet along said Southerly right-of-way of said Franklin Road to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 26.11 acres., more or less. SUBJECT T0: All existing easements and road rights-of-way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Cj~Ff~j ~~ ~ ~ZSa ~ ~rE pF ~~y} Q~~r a+~' GAL:lhc Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. f:\projects\11130\legals\bndry.doc .' ~ (J'u November 15, 1996 Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mr. Berg: 0 p RE: PROPERTIES WEST ANNEXATION/ZONING PROPERTIES WEST, INC. -Applicant FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 ~~~~ CITY ~~ ~~~~D~~~B Enclosed for your review and processing are the necessary documents as established by the City of Meridian Ordinances for an Annexation/Zoning Application and a Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. As stipulated by said ordinance, please find enclosed the following: ANNEXATION APPLICATION ITEMS - 1. A copy, of a Warranty. Deed showing title of a portion of the property vested in Properties West, Inc.; a copy of a Warranty Deed showing title of a portion of the property vested in Gary and .Deborah Little; and a copy of a purchase agreement between. Properties West, Inc.,. and Gary and Deborah Little. 2. A notarized request for the annexation and zoning amendment from the titled owners -Properties West, Inc., and Gary and Deborah Little. 3. A written legal description of the subject property showing the total site as measured to the center of Franklin Road identified as the "Annexation" Legal. 4. One copy of a map at a scale of 1 " = 100' of the property to be annexed (Pre!i, ~ ~i^ary Plat of the proposed 1~,ledimont Subdivisio^). 5. 30 copies of the Application for Annexation and Zoning to an I-L (Light Industrial) zone. 6. 30 copies of a Vicinity Map, 11 " x 17": 7. A Property Owners List within 300 feet of the subject property. 8. A check in the amount of $1,335.30 from Properties West, Inc., for the Annexation and Preliminary Plat application fees. 9. A written narrative prepared by Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S., of J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc., describing the annexation request and the proposed development. J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250-South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Is ~~~J - ~ i ~~-u-B~ Mr. Will Berg Engineers Surveyors Planners November 15, 1996 Page 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ITEMS - 1. 30 copies of the Request for Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Plat Application for Medimont Subdivision. 2. 30 copies of Preliminary Plat, 22" x 34", at a scale of 1 " = 100' (includes Vicinity Map). 3. 30 copies of a reduced Preliminary Plat, 8-1/2"x 11 ". 4. 4 copies of the Conceptual Engineering Plan, 22" x 34", at a scale of 1 " = 100'. 5. One copy of a written legal description of the proposed subdivision property identified as the Medimont Subdivision. 6. One copy of a Rough Draft of the proposed Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated November 12, 1996. O Please review the enclosed information and schedule a Public Hearing for the next available Planning & Zoning Meeting. If you require additional information, please call. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. p r!~ - ~. ry P~'Cee, P.E./L.S. Project Manager GAL:Ihc Enclosures, cc Jon Barnes, Properties West, Inc. f:\projects\11130\admin\cityltrl. doc (~ U•B ~ _~~~ J-U-B ~INEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 To : Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian __ 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 ~7TER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/96 Project No. 11130-02 PROJECT NAME: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION PROJECT MANAGER: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: Preliminary Profiles and Ground Water Evaluation GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the following items: ®ATTACHED ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER via ^ SHOP DRAWINGS [! PRINTS ^ SAMPLES ^ SPECIFICATIO~JS ®COPY OF LETTER L] CATALOG SHEETS ^ CHANGE ORDER ~ Vellum COPIES DATE or No. DESCRIPTION 1 11-20-96 Profiles for Streets, Sewer, Storm Drain, Irrigation and Water Lines 1 10-25-96 Letter, report, groundwater data, soils profile data from STRATA THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ^ FOR APPROVAL ®AS REQUESTED ^ FOR SIGNATURE ^ FOR YOUR USE ®FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ^ FOR BIDS DUE , 1994 ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Will: Enclosed is the profile information that Shari Stiles had requested for the Preliminary Plat application for Medimont Subdivision. Please see that she gets this information. I have sent a copy to Gary Smith with this transmittal. Also, enclosed is a report from STRATA discussing the seasonal high ground water and the existing soils profiles for the property. (copy sent to Gary Smith) If you have any questions, please call. ~~~:~~.~ N Q V 2: 1°J6 CITY OF I~L~II~I~~i IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. ~- -B ENGINEERS, Inc. COPY FOR Garv Smith w/enclosure SIGNED: Gary .Lee, P.E./L.S. RECEIVED BY: DATE: PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN COPY TO J-U-$. z 9G ?44 • DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION TO BE 1~ZARKETED AS STONEBRIDGE BUSINESS PARK THIS DECLARATION is made this day of , 1997, by Properties West, an Idaho Corporation, 1401 Shoreline Drive, Boise, Idaho 83702, hereinafter called "Declarant" . ARTICLE I 1. l The Declarant is the present record title holder of certain real property situated in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein, which real property is referred to herein as the "Property" . 1.2 The Declarant is desirous of subjecting the Property to the conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations hereinafter set forth to insure proper design, development, improvement and use of the Property, by Declarant and persons, associations, corporations and other entities who or which may subsequently acquire an interest in the Property. ARTICLE II 2.1 As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires: 1} "Committee" shall- mean the Stonebridge Business Park Architectural Committee. 1 • 9) "Property" shall mean and refer to the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and incorporated by this reference herein, as platted . on the recorded subdivision plat of Stonebridge Business Park. 10) "Building" shall mean and include,. but not be limited to, .the main portion of a structure built for permanent use and all projections or extensions thereof, including, but not limited to garages, outside platforms, docks and patios, storage tanks, carports, enclosed malls and porches. 11) "Architectural Committee" shall mean and refer to the Stonebridge Business Park Architectural Committee established pursuant to Article V hereof, its successors and assigns. 12) "Covenants' shall mean this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Stonebridge Business Park, as the- same may hereafter be amended and supplemented as herein provided. 13) "Design Standard" shall mean the Stonebridge Business Park Design Standards, incorporated herein as they may be modified, supplemented or amended from time to time in the future as provided. 14) "Improvements" shall mean and include, but not be limited to, buildings, driveways, exterior lighting, fences, landscaping, lawns, loading areas, parking areas, retaining walls, roadways, ponds, drainage channels, screening walls, utilities, .accessory buildings, and walkways located on a Building Lot. 15) "Landscaping" shall mean lawn and/or vegetative ground cover combined with shrubbery, trees, flowers, vines, earth forms, irrigation systems and similar materials. Plantings may be complemented with earth berms, terraces, walls, fences, and masonry or other improvements on the Building Lot. to present a harmonious and attractive whole. 16) "Lawn" shall mean a space of ground covered with turf grass, kept neatly mowed and maintained. 1'n "Lessee" shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture, partnership or association, which has legally leased or rented the right to occupy and use any Building or Building Lot, whether or not such right is exercised. 18) "Occupant" shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture,. partnership, or association, which has purchased, leased, 3 • • 2'n "Structure" shall mean and refer to any thing or device the placement of which upon any lot might affect the physical appearance thereof, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, buildings, walks, and signs. 28) "Use, Permitted" shall mean use of property for those uses specified in the Design Standards, CC&Rs, and Meridian City Zoning Ordinance, except to the extent such use may constitute a prohibited use. 29) "Use, Prohibited" shall mean any use so specified ~ in the Design Standards, CC&Rs, and Meridian City Zoning Ordinance because it may be incomplete, offensive, hazardous or unlawful. ARTICLE III PURPOSE 3.1 The development of each site within Stonebridge Business Park and the construction of any Improvements on the Property, is controlled and restricted by the Development Standards, as well as applicable governmental codes and regulations, and conditions of approval. The Development Standards are established by these Covenants for the purpose of achieving a more uniform and higher level of quality of design for the Improvements, with the intent of creating a setting which attracts business. users who desire a quality location and desire that an effort be made to avoid Improvements which might detract from such a quality setting. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Committee shall have the authority to take into consideration the following more specific .criteria in exercising its approval authority under these Covenants: 1) providing Owners with reasonable assurance that the design, development, improvement, use and maintenance of Building Lots will not unreasonably detract from the quality of the Improvements constructed by other Owners; 2) preventing the erection on the Property of Improvements of improper design, or constructed of improper or unsuitable materials or with improper quality and methods of construction; 3) encouraging the erection of high quality and attractive Improvements appropriately located within the Property in order to achieve visual quality and harmonious appearance and function; 5 • (hereinafter "Common Property"), such as entrance, landscaped buffer azeas, open areas, ponds, creeks, canals, irrigation systems, ditches, streets, street lights, signs, islands, and median strips, all devoted to the use and enjoyment of the public, and to undertake such other activities as are related to maintaining the Common Property as a desirable community to the extent such maintenance, improvement, and beautification are not adequately being accomplished by cities or other public organizations or districts charged with such responsibility. The Owner's Association shall be authorized to hold easement . to real property and shall accept legal title to all Common Property which may Abe deeded to it, for the use and benefit of the tenants. The Owner's Association shall undertake, or demand from the public organizations the maintenance and upkeep of such Common Property. The Owner's Association shall pay, or arrange for payment directly by its members, on an equitable basis, for such utility services as may be required for street and sign lighting, irrigation systems, landscape maintenance and other uses in connection with the Common Property. For these purposes, the Association may assess its members in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. 4.4 Assessments 1) Annual Assessments - An annual assessment, which shall be paid monthly, shall be assessed against each Building Lot. The assessments shall be based on the pro rata area. compared to the total area of all Building Lots, for the purpose of paying for the services hereinbefore mentioned to be fixed no later than December 1 of each prior yeaz by action of the Owner's Association Board of Directors. The undeveloped phases of the project property shall not be subject to assessment. Provided, however, that the annual assessment for the Association's first fiscal year, ending .December 31st shall be within thirty (30) days of its incorporation. The annual assessments provided for herein, shall be assessed at the beginning of each twelve-month period, commencing on January I of each yeaz; and such assessments shall be paid and collected in monthly installments pursuant to a plan adopted by the Boazd of Directors of the Owner's Association. 2) Special Assessments -Special Assessments may be imposed upon each Building Lot for the purpose of capital improvements on the Common Property, or any other purpose upon the recommendation of the Owner's Association Boazd of Directors and approved by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Owner's Association. Special assessments shall be made on a per square foot basis of the area of a Building Lot, and shall be due 7 • • submitted to and approved by the Committee. Such plans and specifications shall be submitted in writing over the signature of the Owner or his authorized agent. 5.4 Approval shall be based, among other things, on the Development Standards, the adequacy of Building Lot dimensions, conformity and harmony of external design with neighboring structures, effect of location and use of improvements on neighboring Building Lots, operations and uses; finished ground elevation and landscaping being compatible with that of neighboring portions of the Property; proper facing of main elevation with respect to nearby streets; and conformity of the plans and specifications to the purposes and general plan and intent of these Covenants. The Committee shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its approval. S.5 If the Committee fails either to approve or to disapprove such plans and specifications (including resubmission of disapproved plans and specifications which have been revised) within thirty (30) days. after the written notification herein after referred to that the required plans and specifications have been received by the Committee, it shall conclusively be presumed that said plans and specifications have been approved subject, however, to the specific restrictions contained in these Covenants; provided, however, that if within said thirty (30) day period, the Committee gives written notice of the fact that an additional thirty (30) day period is required for examination and review of such plans and specifications, there shall be no presumption that the same are approved until the expirations of the additional thirty (30) day period of time as set forth in said notice. The Committee shall notify the applicant Owner in writing upon receipt of all required plans and specifications and the aforesaid initial thirty (30) day time period shall commence on the date set forth in such notification. 5.6 Neither the Committee nor Declarant or their respective successors or assigns shall be liable in damages to anyone submitting plans to them for approval, or to any Owner or Occupant of the Property affected by those Covenants, by reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve or carry out the intent of, these Covenants. Every person who submits plans to the Committee for approval agrees, by submissioD of such pans and specifications, and every Owner or Occupant of any Building Lot agrees, by acquiring title thereto or an interest therein, that he will not bring any action or suit against the Committee or Declarant to recover such damages. 9 ARTICLE VII 7.1 The following building setbacks shall be required unless waived by the Committee to account for unusual circumstances: 1) The minimum front yazd building setback shall be 35 feet from property line.. 2) The minimum side yazd building setback shall be 5 feet from property line. 3) The minimum reaz yazd setback shall be 20 feet from property line. Lots 3 through 20, Block 3, of Stonebridge Business Pazk shall have a reaz yazd setback of 40 feet. 4) The minimum building setback at a side street shall be 30 feet from property line. 5) All building setback areas fronting a street shall be fully landscaped or paved in a manner approved by the Committee. 6) Planters, walls and sign elements not exceeding 3'0" in height may be permitted in the front setback azeas with the written approval of the Committee, subject to requirements of applicable governmental agencies. 7.2 No fence or wall shall be constructed closer than thirty-five (35) feet from the property line of a fronting street and thirty (30) feet from a side street. No fence or wall shall exceed a height of 8'0" unless otherwise approved in writing by the Committee. All fences and walls shall be designed as an integrated part of the overall azchitectural and site design. All fences and walls shall be constructed of materials and finishes. compatible with the adjacent buildings within the Business Pazk. 7.3 No on-street parking shall be permitted. On-site pazking shall be provided as required by government agencies having jurisdiction. 7.4 Storage, service, maintenance, and loading areas must be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the following conditions: 1) Unless approved in writing, no materials, supplies, or equipment, including trucks or other motor vehicles, shall be stored upon a site except inside a closed building ar behind a visual barrier screen of a wall or 11 • off. All elements of drainage design and improvements shall conform with applicable regulations of Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian. 7.9 Building Footprint -The building footprint shall not exceed 509b of the Building Lot as well as the standards set by the City of Meridian Zoning Ordinance. 7.10 Electric LiEhting -All exterior and security lighting shall either be mounted on the building or shall have underground service to a light pole in accordance with plans and specifications approved in writing by the Committee to the end that lighting shall be compatible and harmonious throughout Stonebridge Business Pazk. 7.11 Fences -Fences shall be required around all storage yazds. 7.12 Landscaping -The Meridian City Zoning Ordinance shall be complied with regazding maximum improved areas. Each .Owner or Occupant within Stonebridge Business Pazk shall be responsible for the construction, installation, and maintenance of functional and aesthetically suitable landscaping on its Building Lot. Such landscaping shall be subject to the following requirements and shall be installed only after plans therefore have been submitted to and approved by the Committee. 1) R~tl, uired Landscapine -The Owner or Occupancy must install suitable landscaping in the following azeas: a) All landscaping shall be irrigated and maintained in a first class condition. b) All areas, not devoted to buildings, parking areas, storage lot, roadways, and sidewalks, shall be landscaped. c) Each Building site .shall be landscaped twenty (20) feet inside the property boundary behind the sidewalk line along any street. Each Building Lot shall have a minimum of seven !'7) feet on all interior side lot lines between the front property ling; behind the sidewalk and the front of the building. Entry drives and visual triangle requirements aze exceptions to this requirement. The remainder of any required setback may be used for automobile parking or for a different kind of landscape treatment. The twenty (20) foot landscaped area along any street shall have a berm with an approximate rise of three (3) feet. d) Landscaping shall also be required on each Building Lot in all front areas that are not otherwise used for automobile pazking. 13 • ARTICLE IX • 9.1 All lots to which delivery of irrigation water from the common facility is feasible in the Declarant's discretion, as well as the Owner's Association with respect to Common Area, shall have access to a pressurized irrigation water system ("irrigation system") to be constructed by Declarant and owned and operated by the Owner's. Association for the benefit of the Association, Declarant and Lot Owners. Owners of lots to which the system has been extended shall be required to pay the assessment therefore, regardless of actual use or nonuse of water from the irrigation system. Use of the irrigation system shall be subject to such rules and regulations of the Owner's Association as may from time to time be adopted by the Owner's Association and the right to receive water therefrom is, in any event, subject to availability of the water. The Owner's Association shall regulate the use of water to conserve its availability for lots and for the Common Area. 9.2 Water from the irrigation system is not drinkable; each lot owner shall be responsible to ensure that irrigation water within the. boundaries of his lot is not consumed by any person or used for culinary purposes. ARTICLE % DETENTION AND RETENTION OF STORM WATER 10.1 Detention and Retention Pond Stormwater Drainage Basins: Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3, of Stonebridge Business Park, shall be Common Area, and shall be used primarily for a detention and retention pond stormwater drainage basin, which shall be maintained by the Owner's Association. 1) "Heavy" Maintenance of Stormwater Basins: Heavy maintenance consists of periodi~,ally inspecting the stormwater basins to ensure it is functi~.-ning properly; cleaning out the facility piping and mucking out the facility when the sediment level exceeds the designed storage level. All other maintenance shall be referred to herein as "light" maintenance. Ada County Highway District (ACRD) has opted to perform the "heavy" maintenance and shall be allowed by the Owners and the Owner's Association to perform this maintenance work. In the event ACRD shall decide not to do such "heavy" maintenance, the Owner's Association shall do so. 15 aze identified by ACRD within the prescribed thirty (30) days, then in that event, ACRD may begin to undertake such maintenance. ACRD is hereby granted an irrevocable license and easement to enter upon any portion of the common area to perform such inspection and maintenance of the stormwater basins. Should ACRD engage in maintenance of the defined common area or facility after having provided notice to the Owner's Association and having provided the Owner's Association an opportunity. to undertake said maintenance, ACI:ID shall first bill the Owner's Association, and if such bill shall not be paid within sixty (60) days, then ACRD shall be entitled to and empowered to file a taxable lien against all lots within Stonebridge Business Pazk with power of sale as to each and every lot in order to secure payment of any and all assessments levied against all lots in these subdivisions pursuant to the Master Declaration as if said maintenance had been performed by the Owner's Association, together with interest at the rate which accrues on judgments thereon, and all costs of collection which may be paid or incurred by ACRD. The Owner's Association shall not be dissolved or relieved of its responsibility to maintain the defined common area and facilities contained therein without the prior written approval from ACRD. The Owner's Association. and all lot owners by accepting title to a lot agree that all lot owners -within these subdivisions are benefitted property owners of such maintenance. ARTICLE RI 11.1 No portion of Stonebridge Business Pazk shall be used in such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent properties or streets such as, but not limited to, vibration and sound, electro-mechanical disturbance and radiation, grease, air or water pollution, dust, emission of odorous, toxic or noxious matter. 11.2 No nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon any lot or site so as to be offensive or detrimental to any adjacent lot or site or neighboring property or to its occupants. A "nuisance" shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following conditions: 1? • • 11.3 No hazardous or noxious waste as listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of priority pollutants or any other governmental regulations shall be manufactured, stored, or transported unless so done under current and future governmental standards and practices and only after written approval of the Committee. The Committee shall have the authority to require written evidence of compliance with applicable governmental regulations and to institute appropriate legal proceedings to require compliance with applicable governmental regulations as to hazardous materials. ARTICLE RII 12.1 Abatement and Suit These Covenants shall run with the land, and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Declarant and the Owners of every Building Lot on the Property. These Covenants may be enforced as provided hereinafter by Declarant acting for itself, the Committee, and as trustee on behalf of all of the Owners of Building Lots. Each Owner, by acquiring an interest in the Property, shall appoint irrevocably the Declarant as his attorney-in-fact for such purposes; provided, however, that if a Building Lot Owner notifies Declarant of a claimed violation of these Covenants and Declarant fails to commence actions to remedy such violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notification, then, and in that event only, an Owner n-ay separately, at his own cost and expense, enforce the Covenants herein contained. Violation of any Covenants herein contained shall give to the Declarant the right to enter upon the portion of the Property wherein said violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and remove at the expense of the Owner any structure, thing or condition that may be or exists thereon contrary, to the intent and meaning of the provisions hereof, or to prosecute a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons who have violated or are attempting to violate any of these Covenants, to enjoin or prevent them from doing so, to cause said violation to be remedied or to recover damages for said violation. The right a~ the Declarant to act in the above manner shall cease upon the sale and construction of the last building lot. 12.2 Deemed to Constitute a Nuisance Every violation of these Covenants or Architectural Design Guidelines or any part thereof is hereby declared to be and to constitute a nuisance, and every public or private remedy allowed thereof by law or equity against an Owner or Occupant shall be applicable against every such violation and may be exercised by Declarant. 19 • 15.5 Singular and Plural Words. used herein, regazdless of the number and gender specifically used, shall be deemed and construed to include any other number, singular or plural, and any other gender, masculine, feminine or neuter, as the context requires. 15.6 Mortgage The term "Mortgage" as used herein shall include deeds of trust and trust deeds. IN VVl[TNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this instrument the day and yeaz first above written. PROPERTIES WEST, INC. BY: Jon L. Barnes, President 23 -~ ~ • ~~-uf . Engineers Surveyors Planners Project: 11130 Date: November 8, 1996 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MEDII~iT SUBDIVISION A PORTIUaT OF LAND WITHIN SECTION 1B, T.3N., R.lE., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A portion of land within the NE 1,(4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly as follows: Commencingg at a found brass cap at the section corner common to Sections 7, 8, 17 and 18 of T.3N., R.lE., B.M., at the ~esiter line intersection of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road; thence Westerly along the center line of said Franklin Road and the section line common to Sections 17 and 18, South 89°46:'`18" West 480.70 feet; thence leaving said center line and said section line South 02°14'38" East 25.02 feet to a point on the Southerly right-~f-way of said Franklin Road and a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260, the REAL. POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 02°14'38" East 162.38' feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South 00°58'43" West 494.50 feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South 19°08'17" East 135.59 feet to a set 5/8" rebar with cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence South O1°25'43" West 520.56. feet to a found iron pin on the North 1/16 line of said Section 18; thence South 89°39'40" West 888.27 feet along the said 1/16 line of said Section 18 to the NE 1/16 corner of said section, from which a found 5/8" rebar bears North 00°29'39" East 0.25 feet; thence North 00°29'39" East I, 307.10 feet along said East 1/16 line to a point on the South right-of-way of said Franklin Road and a set 5/8" rebar with plastic cap P.E./L.S. 3260; thence North 89°96'18" East 847.60 feet along said Southerly right-of-way of said Franklin Road to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 26.11 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road ria~hts-of-way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of~land. Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 3zso of r ~, GAL:lhc Gar~,~ A. Lee, P.E./L.S. t:\pro~ects\11130\legals\bndry.doc • i ----~- i i .. i ~€ ~~ ~~ ~~ a~ L ~~ i ~~ ~~ C-S ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ PXoTe~r. ~ a~~s~f" Lac~c/4 ~ evlth ~. s L ~. p S~ ji`y~ . ~1 ~ uzd ~ uagca[r~a ~ ,_ xaa~;~ ~~t Ve al ~A ~€~€~~ ~~ ~ s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7446 Lemhi Street, Boise, Idaho 83709 208 376-8200 /Fax 208 376-8201 Mr. Gary Lee, P.E. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 250 South Beechwood Boise, Idaho 83709 Avenue, Suite 201 Dear Mr. Lee: c~ D October 25, 1996 Project No. 92-06 J-U-B Engineers O C T 2 8 1996 B ISE, IDAHO ~~ 0 V 2 1 X996 RE: LETTER C~'t'Y OF ~4ERid1I~11 Ground Water Evaluation Properties West, Inc. Industrial Park Meridian, Idaho On April 17, 1996, our personnel observed the excavation of and logged five (5) test pits for ground water monitoring. The location of the test pits was selected by J-U-B Engineers. Plate 1 shows the test pit locations. Ground water monitoring wells were installed in each of the test pits to a depth of 9 to 12 feet. The test pit logs are enclosed. The subsurface conditions generally consisted of silt and clay surficial soil overlying cemented silt and sandy gravel with cobbles. The depth to sandy gravel was about 5.0 to 6.0 in all test pits except Test Pit 4 where the depth to gravel was 10.0 feet. R-value tests were performed on the potential pavement subgrade soils. The R-value tests are enclosed. Ground water was not encountered in the test pits at the time of excavation. An existing irrigation ditch (Hunter Lateral) was observed to the southwest of the property. The ditch was about 4 feet deep with about 1 foot of water depth on April 17 and October 9, 1996. Gravel was observed in the bottom of the ditch. Monitoring of the ground water level in each observation well has been accomplished on a monthly to bi-monthly basis between May and October, 1996. The results of the monitoring are shown on the attached tables. Flood irrigation was accomplished over the majority of the property during the months of July through October. Therefore, ground water levels appear to be artificially high, associated with flood irrigation during these months, and not representative of the true high ground water level. The latest flood irrigation occurred during the first week of October 1996. It is our understanding that irrigation water was terminated from the Hunter lateral on October 15, 1996. Our well readings of October 15 and 21 show the water levels dropping to greater than 6.4 feet below the ground surface in the south part of the site near the _Hunter lateral. The depth to high ground water appears to be greater than 9 feet in the north portion of the site as recorded in Test Pits 1 and 2. Since flood imgation will not be practiced on the subject site in the future during site development, it is our opinion that the recent October 15 and 22 observation well readings are most representative of the high ground water level during this season. However, future ground IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA UTAH NE4ADA j• ~~ Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 Page 2 water levels will probably be lower provided that flood irrigation practices aze discontinued on the property. Based on the available ground water monitoring data, we recommend considering a high ground water level of 6.4 feet for the south azea and 9.0 feet for the north azea of the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, STRATA, C. -~ Ted Clawges ~~ Eryy Laboratory Manager Q~ @ ~pSTEAFO~~ ~ ~s~b ~~P 6 5 6 0 Daniel P. Gado, P.E. 'f'J,~~,_ _~~° Principal DPG/sr O ~ OF ~"~ O 4~~EL P. Op% Enclosures s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOTECHNICAI ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING W Q t7 Z 0 N MMJ l~L W 2s7• E. FRANKLIN R AD ;~ 51T ~ s20' 1 i _ ^ .~_._._...._._....__~.._ ANDtiPAPE lOt _ N it 1 f,f113 Sf LANOSCACE LOt 1 it L ~ a 7' 241' ~ 2~. ~~ ~ ~ TP-1 x ~ ~ z TP 2 g ~ ? • ~' S S4,3a2 Si n '' i 59.7/2 S< ~+ 6a,852 ~ ~ iMST ~ S0 ),)• rslr ALLOtKD Ntn' ~~ 21q 215 u ~G • Q_ ~ $~ t p-VA `• 4s.7S0 Si 2f9' %n AI nf:K ,S A 5 n r 4 i+ 7S.V91 Y .o i s Fjl./)~'K I 300' T~`3 n ;, s ~+'? ~. a6,taa SF r ~ ~' a2.E07 Si . ~ szs TP 5 ' tag' ~' R l 6 ~ A ~ St,272 SC S.5'S St ~'. ~' 7 362 +5.1 S6 Si 110' ).9' .~ 19 ( 7 n ~, J3.062 SF )~)~ R-VALUE 200• TP~4 ;: ;, T ry aa,.172 $~ f~l4:KI ~W' 1oa 30' 30' 200' s ~ ~ a ~ a ~ OEOTECNNICAL LNON1LL111N0"i YATLIIIALS TESTING PROPERTIES WEST, INDUSTRIAL PARK P-oNot ~• ~z•os PLATE ~ ~~ ~~ s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 'aa6 Lemhi Street. Boise, Idaho 83709 208 376-8200 / Fax 208 376-8201 REPORT T0: J-U-H Engineers - Boise 250 South Beachwood Boise, Idaho 83709 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: DATE: 8/27/96 FILE .NO: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-962127 Normal h'.gh groundwater is the highest elevation of a warmer table that is maintained or exceeded for a continuous period of six weeks per year. Ia order to obtain the six highest groundwater readings, a monitoring time frame of eight weeks to one year will be necessary depending on location and site conditions. Groundwater is measured from the original grade rather than a filled or finished grade for consistency of readings. Soil profiles of test holes and soil typing will also be submitted for review on the project. If the groundwater data does not reflect normal high water table for the area, additional monitoring may reau re . Location of test holes on Bite: 2 5 _ 3 ~-- WEER 1 Date Monitored 5/2/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW~ater Depth NW WEER 1 Date Monitored 5/2/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water De th WEER 2 Date Monitored 5/28/96 Teat Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW WEER 2 Date Monitored 5/28/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hols 5 Teat Hole *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth WEER 3 Date Monitored 6/24/96 Teat Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Teat Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW ~I*later Depth I~3i - * e~ P1W = No Water -~-~~-- ~__.._. N Flood Irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. T. _he beet of my knowledge, the above information is accurate. IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA UTAH NEVADA REPORT T0: J-U-B Engineers - Boise 250 South Beechwood Boise, Idaho 83709 DATE: 6/26/96 FILE N0: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-960667 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: This orm is inten a or use as a tool or measurement o groan water mon for nq on y. So profiles of test holes and soils typing east also be submitted on this proposed project. The monitoring and accompanying graph must reflect the six weeks of highest groundwater. In order to obtain the six high weeks, eight weeks to one year of weekly monitoring will be necessary depending on the location and site conditions found. Groundwater is to be measured from original grade on all test holes and not from a filled or finished grade. WEER 3 Date Monitored 6/24/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th NW *Water De th NW *Water De th WEER 4 Date Monitored 7/16/96 Teat Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth 8.6' *Water Depth 3. *Watsr Depth 5-~ WEER 4 Date Monitored 7/16/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 5.7' *Water Depth 1.1' *Water Depth WEER 5 Date Monitored 7/22/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 6.7' *Water Depth~~ WEER 5 Date Monitored 7/22/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th 0' *Water De th 4.4' *Water De th .:R 6 Date Monitored 8/5/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 4. ' *Water De th~.8= WEER 6 Date Monitored 8/5/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 3.6' *Water Depth 3.0' *Water Depth WEER 7 Date Monitored 8/14/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 5.3= *Water Depth~~ WEER 7 Date Monitored 8/14/96 Test Hole 4 Teat Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th 4.2' *Water De th 5.5' *Water De th WEER 8 Date Monitored 9/17/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 8.~~ater De th~f WEER 8 Date Monitored 9/17/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 5.4' *Water Depth 2.5' *Water Depth WEER 9 Date Monitored 10/8/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Teat Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 8. *Water Depth~.$T WEER 9 Date Monitored 10/8/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 7.4' *Water Depth 5. *Water Depth tt Tsw~ --cry.. ~~~u~ vr~yirirst vraae. NW = No Water Note: Flood irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. To the best of my knowledge, the above inforeaation is accurate. s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOYECtiMYCAI ENGMEE RING 6 MATE NiAtS TESTING ~J REPORT TO: J-U-B Engineers - Boise 250 South Beachwood Boise, Idaho 83709 1L_J DATE: .10/9/96 FILE NO: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-960667 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: T s orm s nten a or use as a too or measurement o grown water mon for nq on y. So profiles of teat holes and soils typing must also be submitted on this proposed project. The monitoring and accompanying graph must reflect the six weeks of highest groundwater. In order to obtain the six high weeks, eight weeks to one year of weekly monitoring will be necessary depending on the location and site conditions found. Groundwater is to be measured from original grade on all test holes and not from a filled or finished grade. WEER 10 Date Monitored 10/9/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW @ ~.~*Water De th~~' *Water Dew-6.1' WEER 10 Date Monitored 10/9/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 7.65' *infater Depth 6.3T*Water De th WEER 11 Date Monitored 10/15/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW *Water Depth NW *Water De th 7. ' WEER 11 Date Monitored 10/15/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 8.1' *Water Depth 6.~ *Water Depth WEER 12 Date Monitored 10/21/96 Teat Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW *Water De th NW *Water De h~~ ~R 12 Date Monitored 10/21/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 9.0' *Water Depth 7. *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hols *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water De th *Water De th *Water De h WEER. Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water De th *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hols Test Hole Test Hols *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth *Tew~ ++cr~,aa a.ivu~ vric3iiial \srda@. NW No Water Notes Flood Irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. To the beet of my knowledge, the above information is accurate. sianature~ Date ~ o -~3~~yG s ~ ~ a ~ a ' 3E9•EC..N~CA~ ENG~NEE FiNG S MATE q~A~j 'E $' 4u EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #{1 w Q 0 z 0 w ~ ~ m W J Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL (feet) CLASS 0.0 - 2.0 ML/CL 2.0 - 4.5 ML/CL 4.5 - 5.0 ML 5.0 - 10.5 GP s SOIL DESCRIPTION Silty LAY -brown, soft, wet, with vegetation. SILT/CLAY -hard, dry, moderately to highly cemented. SILT -medium dense, dry, slightly cemented. Fine to medium sandy RAVEL -medium dense, dry, some cementation. Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on April 17, 1996. No ground water enrnuntered. Test pit terminated at IO.S feet below existing ground level. Logged by: ?L^ s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING i MATERIALS TESTING P~.aTs EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #2 W a 0 Z 0 W ~- ac m w J LL Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML/CL Clayey ILT -brown, soft, wet, with vegetation. 1.0 - 2.5 ML S ~ -firm, slightly moist 2.5 - 4.0 ML SILK -dry, moderately to highly cemented. 4.0 - 5.0 SM Silty, medium dense SAND -moderately cemented. 5.0 - 7.0 GP Medium sandy RAVEL -dense, slightly moist 7.0 - 10.25 GP Fine to medium sandy RAVEL -dense, slightly moist, trace clay Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on April 17, 1996 No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at IO.S feet below existing grouiul level: Logged by: Tt; s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNiCAL ENOINEERINO E MATENIALS TESTING PLAT • '• EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #3 W Q 0 Z 0 w ~ ~ m W J LL .tl c m I} 0 iw U Y w ~ U Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH (feet) SOII. CLASS SOIL DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 2.25 ML-CL Clayey ILT -loose, moist to wet, with vegetation. 2.25 - 5.5 ML SILT -light tan, dry, moderately to highly cemented. 5.5 - 11.0 GP Fine to medium sandy GRAVEL -dense, slit~htly moist, slightly cemented. Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on April 17, 1996. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing ground level. Logged by: TC s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAI ENOINEERINO i MATERIAL! TE9TINp PLATt EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG !t4 w a 0 Z O w >- ~ m Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML-CL Clayey -soft, wet, with vegetation. 1.0 - 3.0 ML ~ -soft, wet, with calcium. w J LL 3.0 - 6.0 ML ,~ -firm, slightly moist, lightly cemented. 6.0 - 9.0 MI., Fine sandy -soft, very moist. 9.0 - 10.0 SM Silty, fine AND with gravel -medium dense, moist. 10.0 - 13.0 GP Fine to medium sandy AVE -medium dense, moist, cobbles to 8 inches. Note: Ditch in southwest corner 4 to 5 feet below grade, 1 to 1.5 feet water running, gravel in bottom of ditch. Observation well installed to a depth of 12.0 feet. Ercaviated o-e April 1 ~, 1996 No grou~rd water enrnu»tered. Tut pit tenrrinated at 13.0 feu below existi~rg growtd level Logged by: TIC s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING l MATERIALS TESTING PLAT i• w Q 0 Z 0 w } ~ m EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #!5 Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOII. (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML/CL Clayey ,~I -soft, wet, with organics. 1.0 - 3.0 ML ~I, T -tan, trace moisture, lightly to moderately cemented. 3.0 - 6.0 SM ~ Silty SAND -medium dense, slightly moist, slightly cemented. 6.0 - 10.0 GP-GW Fine to coarse sandy R V -dense, slightly moist. w J Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Eccavated on April 17, 199 No growrd water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below aisting grow~d level. Logged by: T1C s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECNNICAL ENOINEERINO i NJITERIAIS TElTINO PLAT . ' • s ~ ~ a- a ' GEUTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7+N6 Lemhi Street. Boise, Idaho 83709 208 376.8200 /fax 208 378-8201 REPORT OF TESTS 011 SOIL PROJECT _Properties West Industrial Park LAB ~ 962974 INVOICE # IDENT NR FILE - SUBMITTED BY Strata SOURCE NR STATION 300'N o S prpty In on Proposed Street SAMPLED BY TC TEST HOLE R, DATE 3AMPL D DEPTH 18" DATE RELIEVED 17 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL Fine Sandy Clay MECHANICAL ANAL. $ PASS SOIL CONSTANTS PIPE DATA LIQUID LIMIT pH RESISTIVITY OHM.CM. PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX REMARR3 SPEC GRAVITY (+3T4"'~- SPEC GRAVITY (-NO 4) * 3 ps SAND EQUIVALENT "R" VALUE <5 Met od: I a o T- ERP PRESSURE, PSI * One Point On y UNIFIED CLASS TRAFFIC INDEX 0 0 g a o MOISTURE DENSITY CURVE °o AASHTO DESIGNATION T99 METHOD m MAX. DRY WT. ~/CU.FT. OPT.MOIST $ 0 0 0 0 ~o DRY c DENSITY g L83./CF 0 0 0 0 0 0 °L O O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 g N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o O O O O O O O O O ao r ~o ~n a~ e•f c~ .+ MOISTURE IN PERCENT THIS REPORT COVERS ONLY MATERIAL A3 REPRESENTED BY THIS SAMPUE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY COVER ALL SOIL FROM THIS LAYER OR OURCE. ~h.4 Reviewed By IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA U NEVADA ~ ~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on January 14, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Properties West Inc., for annexation and zoning of approximately 26.60 of land located in part of the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 18, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located South of Franklin Road, West of Locust Grove Road. The Application requests a zone of Light Industrial, I-L. Further, applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 18 buildable Light Industrial lots for Medimont Subdivision (to be marketed as Stonebridge). Amore particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 24th day of December, 1996. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI ERK i ,~ • DECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION TO BE MARKETED AS STONEBRIDGE BUSINESS PARK ,, /,2 /9c THIS DECLARATION is made this day of , 1997, by Properties West, an Idaho Corporation, 1401 Shoreline Drive, Boise, Idaho 83702, hereinafter called "Declarant" . ARTICLE I 1.1 The Declarant is the present record title holder of certain real property situated in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein, which real property is referred to herein as the "Property" . 1.2 The Declarant is desirous of subjecting the Property to the conditions, covenants, restrictions, and ,reservations hereinafter set forth to insure proper design, development, improvement and use of the Property, by Declarant and persons, associations, corporations and other entities who or which may subsequently acquire an interest in the Property. ARTICLE II 2.1 As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires: 1) "Committee" shall mean the Stonebridge Business Park Architectural Committee. ?4R 1 • 9) "Property" shall mean and refer to the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and incorporated by this reference herein, as platted on the recorded subdivision plat of Stonebridge Business Park. 10) "Building" shall mean and include, but not be limited to, ..the main portion of a structure built for permanent use and all projections or extensions thereof, including, but not limited to garages, outside platforms, docks and patios, storage tanks, carports, enclosed malls and porches. 11) "Architectural Committee" shall mean and refer to the Stonebridge Business Park Architectural Committee established pursuant to Article V hereof, its successors and assigns. 12) "Covenants" shall mean this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Stonebridge Business Park, as the same may hereafter be amended and supplemented as herein provided. 13) "Design Standard" shall mean the Stonebridge Business Park Design Standards, incorporated herein as they may be modified, supplemented or amended from time to time in the future as provided. 14) "Improvements" shall mean and include, but not be limited to, buildings, driveways, exterior lighting, fences, landscaping, lawns, loading areas, parking areas, retaining walls, roadways, ponds, drainage channels, screening walls, utilities, accessory buildings, and walkways located on a Building Lot. 15) "Landscaping" shall mean lawn and/or vegetative ground cover combined with shrubbery, trees, flowers, vines, earth forms, irrigation systems and similar materials. Plantings may be complemented with earth berms, terraces, walls, fences, and masonry or other improvements on the Building Lot to present a harmonious and attractive whole. 16) "Lawn" shall mean a space of ground covered with turf grass, kept neatly mowed and maintained. 1'n "Lessee" shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture, partnership or association, which has legally leased or rented the right to occupy and use any Building or Building Lot, whether or not such right is exercised. 18) "Occupant" shall mean an entity, whether it be an individual, corporation, joint venture, partnership, or association, which has purchased, leased, 3 • • 2'n "Structure" shall mean and refer to any thing or device the placement of which upon any lot might affect the physical appearance thereof, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, buildings, walks, and signs. 28) "Use, Permitted" shall mean use of property for those uses specified in the Design Standards, CC&Rs, and Meridian City Zoning Ordinance, except to the extent such use may constitute a prohibited use. 29) "Use, Prohibited" shall mean any use so specified ~ in the Design Standards, CC&Rs, and Meridian City Zoning Ordinance because it may be incomplete, offensive, hazardous or unlawful. ARTICLE III PURPOSE 3.1 The development of each site within Stonebridge Business Park and the construction of any Improvements on the Property, is controlled and restricted by the Development Standards, as well as applicable governmental codes and regulations, and conditions of approval. The Development Standards are established by these Covenants for the purpose of achieving a more utiform and higher level of quality of design for the Improvements, with the intent of creating a setting which attracts business users who desire a quality location and desire that an effort be made to avoid Improvements which might detract from such a quality setting. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Committee shall have the authority to take into consideration the following more specific criteria in exercising its approval authority under these Covenants: 1) providing Owners with reasonable assurance that the design, development, improvement, use and maintenance of Building Lots will not unreasonably detract from the quality of the Improvements constructed by other Owners; 2) preventing the erection on the Property of Improvements of improper design, or constructed of improper or unsuitable materials or with improper quality and methods of construction; 3) encouraging the erection of high quality and attractive Improvements appropriately located within the Property in order to achieve visual quality and harmonious appearance and function; 5 • (hereinafter "Common Property"), such as entrance, landscaped buffer azeas, open areas, ponds, creeks, canals, irrigation systems, ditches, streets, street lights, signs, islands, and median strips, all devoted to the use and enjoyment of the public, and to undertake such other activities as are related to maintaining the Common Property as a desirable community to the extent such maintenance, improvement, and beautification aze not adequately being accomplished by cities or other public organizations or districts chazged with such responsibility. The Owner's Association shall be authorized to hold easement to real property and shall accept legal title to aU Common Property which may ~be deeded to it, for the use and benefit of the tenants. The Owner's Association shall undertake, or demand from the public organizations the maintenance and upkeep of such Common Property. The Owner's Association shall pay, or arrange for payment directly by its members, on an equitable basis, for such utility services as may be required for street and sign lighting, irrigation systems, landscape maintenance and other uses in connection with the Common Property. For these purposes, the Association may assess its members in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. 4.4 Assessments 1) Annual Assessments - An annual assessment, which shall be paid monthly, shall be assessed against each Building Lot. The assessments shall be based on the pro rata area compared to the total area of all Building Lots, for the purpose of paying for the services hereinbefore mentioned to be fixed no later than December 1 of each prior yeaz by action of the Owner's Association Boazd of Directors. The undeveloped phases of the project property shall not be subject to assessment. Provided, however, that the annual assessment for the Association's first fiscal yeaz, ending December 31st shall be within thirty (30) days of its incorporation. The annual assessments provided for herein, shall be assessed at the beginning of each twelve-month period, commencing on January 1 of each yeaz; and such assessments shall be paid and collected in monthly installments pursuant to a plan adopted by the Boazd of Directors of the Owner's Association. 2) Special Assessments -Special Assessments may be imposed upon each Building Lot for the purpose of capital improvements on the Common Property, or any other purpose upon the recommendation of the Owner's Association Boazd of Directors and approved by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Owner's Association. Special assessments shall be made on a per squaze foot basis of the. azea of a Building Lot, and shall be due 7 • submitted to and approved by the Committee. Such plans and specifications shall be submitted in writing over the signature of the Owner or his authorized agent. 5.4 Approval shall be based, among other things, on the Development Standards, the adequacy of Building Lot dimensions, conformity and harmony of external design with neighboring structures, effect of location and use of improvements on neighboring Building Lots, operations and uses; finished ground elevation and landscaping being compatible with that of neighboring portions of the Property; proper facing of main elevation with respect to nearby streets; and conformity of the plans and specifications to the purposes and general plan and intent of these Covenants. The Committee shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its approval. 5.5 If the Committee fails either to approve or to disapprove such plans and specifications (including resubmission of disapproved plans and specifications which have been revised) within thirty (30) days after the written notification herein after referred to that the required plans and specifications have been received by the Committee, it shall conclusively be presumed that said plans and specifications have been approved subject, however, to the specific restrictions contained in these Covenants; provided, however, -that if within said thirty (30) day period, the Committee gives written notice of the fact that an additional thirty (30) day period is required for examination and review of such plans and specifications, there shall be no presumption that the same are approved until the expirations of the additional thirty (30) day period of time as .set forth in said notice. The Committee shall notify the applicant Owner in writing upon receipt of all required plans and specifications and the aforesaid initial thirty (30) day time period shall commence on the date set forth in such notification. 5.6 Neither the Committee nor Declarant or their respective successors or assigns shall be liable in damages to anyone submitting plans to them for approval, or to any Owner or Occupant of the Property affected by those Covenants, by reason of a mistake in judgment, negligence or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve or carry out the intent of, these Covenants. Every person who submits plans to the Committee for approval agrees, by submission of such plans and specifications, and every Ovvner or Occupant of any Building Lot agrees, by acquiring title thereto or an interest therein, that he will not bring any action or suit against the Committee or Declarant to recover such damages.. 9 • ARTICLE VII 7.1 The following building setbacks shall be required unless waived by the Committee to account for unusual circumstances: 1) The minimum front yazd building setback shall be 35 feet from property line. 2) The minimum side yazd building setback shall be 5 feet from property line. 3) The minimum reaz yazd setback shall be 20 feet from property line. Lots 3 through 10, Block 3, of Stonebridge Business Pazk shall have a reaz yazd setback of 40 feet. 4) The minimum building setback at a side street shall be 30 feet from property line. 5) All building setback azeas fronting a street shall be fully landscaped or paved in a manner approved by the Committee. 6) Planters, walls and sign elements not exceeding 3'0" in height may be permitted in the front setback azeas with the written approval of the Committee, subject to requirements of applicable governmental agencies. 7.2 No fence or wall shall be constructed closer than thirty-five (35) feet from the property line of a fronting street and thirty (30) feet from a side street. No fence or wall shall exceed a height of 8'0" unless otherwise approved in writing by the Committee. All fences and walls shall be designed as an integrated part of the overall azchitectural and site design. All fences and walls shall be constructed of materials and finishes compatible with the adjacent buildings within the Business Pazk. 7.3 No on-street pazking shall be permitted. On-site pazking shall be provided as required by government agencies having jurisdiction. 7.4 Storage, service, maintenance, and loading azeas must be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with the following conditions: 1) Unless approved in writing, no materials, supplies, or equipment, including trucks or other motor vehicles, shall be stored upon a site except inside a closed building or behind a visual barrier screen of a wall or 11 ARTICLE IR L_J 9.1 All lots to which delivery of irrigation water from the common facility is feasible in the Declarant's discretion, as well as the Owner's Association with respect to Common Area, shall have access to a pressurized irrigation water system ("irrigation system") to be constructed by Declarant and owned and operated by the Owner's Association for the benefit of the Association, Declarant and Lot Owners. Owners of lots to which the system has been extended shall be required to pay the assessment therefore, regardless of actual use or nonuse of water from the irrigation system. Use of the irrigation system shall be subject to such rules and regulations of the Owner's Association as may from time to time be adopted by the Owner's Association and the right to receive water therefrom is, in any event, subject to availability of the water. The Owner's Association shall regulate the use of water to conserve its availability for lots and for the Common Area. 9.2 Water from the irrigation system is not drinkable; each lot owner shall be responsible to ensure that irrigation water within the boundaries of his lot is not consumed by any person or used for culinary purposes. ARTICLE R DETENTION AND RETENTION OF STO M WATER 10.1 Detention and Retention Pond Stormwater Drainage Basins• Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 3, of Stonebridge Business Park, shall be Common Area, and shall be used primarily for a detention and retention pond stormwater drainage basin, which shall be maintained by the Owner's Association. 1) "Heavy" Maintenance of Stormwater Basins: Heavy maintenance consists of periodically inspecting the stormwater basins to ensure it is functioning properly; cleaning out the facility piping and mucking out the facility when the sediment level exceeds the designed storage level. All other maintenance shall be referred to herein as "light" maintenance. Ada County Highway District (ACRD) has opted to perform the "heavy" maintenance and shall be allowed by the Owners and the Owner's Association to perform this maintenance work. In the event ACRD shall decide not to do such ".heavy" maintenance, the Owner's Association shall do so. 15 • • are identified by ACRD within the prescribed thirty (30) days, then in that event, ACRD may begin to undertake such maintenance. ACRD is hereby granted an irrevocable license and easement to enter upon any portion of the common area to perform such inspection and maintenance of the stormwater basins. Should ACRD engage in maintenance of the defined common area or facility after having provided notice to the Owner's Association and having provided the Owner's Association an opportunity to undertake said maintenance, ACRD shall first bill the Owner's Association, and if such bill shall not be paid within sixty (60) days, then ACRD shall be entitled to and empowered to file a taxable lien against all lots within Stonebridge Business Park with power of sale as to each and every lot in order to secure payment of any and all assessments levied against all lots in these subdivisions pursuant to the Master Declaration as if said maintenance had been performed by the Owner's Association, together with interest at the rate which accrues on judgments thereon, and all costs of collection which may be paid or incurred by ACRD. The Owner's Association shall not be dissolved or relieved of its responsibility to maintain the defined common area and facilities contained therein without the prior written approval from ACRD. The Owner's Association and all lot owners by accepting title to a lot agree that all lot owners within these subdivisions are benefitted property owners of such maintenance. ARTICLE RI 11.1 No portion of Stonebridge Business Park shall be used in such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent properties or streets such as, but not limited to, vibration and sound, electro-mechanical disturbance and radiation, grease, air or water pollution, dust, emission of odorous, toxic or noxious matter. 11.2 No nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon any lot or site so as to be offensive or detrimental to any adjacent lot or site or neighboring property or to its occupants. A "nuisance" shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following conditions: 17 • • 11.3 No hazardous or noxious waste as listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's list of priority pollutants or any other governmental regulations shall be manufactured, stored, or transported unless so done under current and future governmental standards and practices and only after written approval of the Committee. The Committee shall have the authority to require written evidence of compliance with applicable governmental regulations and to institute appropriate legal proceedings to require compliance with applicable governmental regulations as to hazardous materials. ARTICLE XII 12.1 Abatement and Suit These Covenants shall run with the land, and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Declarant and the Owners of every Building Lot on the Properly. These Covenants may be enforced as provided hereinafter by Declarant acting for itself, the Committee, and as trustee on behalf of all of the Owners of Building Lots. Each Owner, by acquiring an interest in the Property, shall appoint irrevocably the Declarant as his attorney-in-fact for such purposes; provided, however, that if a Building Lot Owner notifies Declarant of a claimed violation of these Covenants and Declarant fails to commence actions to remedy such violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notification, then, and in that event only, an Owner may separately, at his own cost and expense, enforce the Covenants herein contained. Violation of any Covenants herein contained shall give to the Declarant the right to enter upon the portion of the Property wherein said violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and remove at the expense of the Owner any structure, thing or condition that may be or exists thereon contrary to the intent and meaning of the provisions hereof, or to prosecute a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons who have violated or are attempting to violate any of these Covenants, to enjoin or prevent them from doing so, to cause said violation to be remedied or to recover damages for said violation. The right of the Declarant to act in the above manner shall cease upon the sale and construction of the last building lot. 12.2 Deemed to Constitute a Nuisance Every violation of these Covenants or Architectural Design Guidelines or any part thereof is hereby declared to be and to constitute a nuisance, and every public or private remedy allowed thereof by law or equity against an Owner or Occupant shall be applicable against every such violation and may be exercised by Declarant. 19 • • ARTICLE %IV 14.1 Term The Covenants and every provision hereof shall continue in full force and effect for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date hereof, and shall thereafter be renewed automatically from year to year unless and until amended or terminated. 14.2 Termination and Modification The Declarant may supplement these Covenants at any time during the term hereof to add additional properties or to impose additional restrictions on portions of the Property then owned by Declarant. Otherwise, these Covenants and every provision hereof may be terminated, extended, modified or amended, as to the whole of said Property or any portion thereof, with the written consent of the Owners of sixty-five percent (65 %) of the square footage of the Property (other than the streets and other areas dedicated to the appropriate municipalities),. subject to these restrictions, provided, however, that during the initial twenty-five (25) year term of these Covenants, no such termination, extension, modification or amendment shall be effective without the written approval of Declarant and provided further that if any amendment affects less than all the Property and is more restrictive than herein provided, such amendment shall require the written consent of the Owner(s) of such affected portions of the Property. Such termination, extension, modification or amendment shall be immediately effective upon recording a proper instrument in writing, executed and acknowledged by such Owners (and/or by Declarant as provided herein) in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Ada County, Idaho. 14.3 ssiEnments of Declarant's Rights and Duties Any and all of the rights, powers, and reservations of Declarant herein contained may be assigned by Declarant to any person, corporation or association which will assume any or all of the duties of Declarant hereunder, and upon any such person, corporation or association's evidencing its consent in writing to accept such assignment, said assignee shall, to the extend of such assignment, assume Declarant's duties hereunder, have the same rights and powers and be subject to the same obligations and duties as are given to and assumed by Declarant herein. Upon such assignment, and to the extent thereof, Declarant shall be relieved from all liabilities, obligations and duties hereunder. The term "Declarant" as used herein includes all such assignees and their heirs, successors and assigns. If, at any time, Declarant ceases to administer these Covenants and has not made such 21 15.5 ~in~laz and Plural Words used herein, regazdless of the number and gender specifically used, shall bt deemed and construed to include any other number, singulaz or plural, and any other gender, masculine, feminine or neuter, as the context requires. 15.6 Morteage The term "Mortgage" as used herein shall include deeds of trust and trust deeds. IN VVITNFSS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this instrument the day and yeaz first above written. PROPERTIES WEST, INC. BY: 23 Jon L. Barnes, President ~ U•B ~ J-U-B EN EERS, Inc. 250 S. Bee ood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 To : Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the following items: ®ATTACHED ^ SHOP DRAWINGS ®PRINTS~ ^ COPY OF LETTER ^ CATALOG SHEETS OF TRANSMITTAL SUBJECT: Revised Preliminary Plat per Council Direction ~C~ PR - 81997 DATE: 4/8/97 Project No. 11130-02 PROJECT NAME: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION PROJECT MANAGER: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. ICY nF ~iF.~iDI~Ar ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER via ^ SAMPLES ^ SPECIFICATIONS ^ CHANGE ORDER ^ COPIES DATE or No. DESCRIPTION 10 4-8-97 Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and 2 -Revised to add Id. Power Easement on East Bdy. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ® FOR APPROVAL ®AS REQUESTED ^ FOR SIGNATURE ^ FOR YOUR USE ^ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ^ FOR BIDS DUE , 1994 ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Will: Enclosed are prints of the revised Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and the revised Conceptual Engineering Plan, Sheet 2. The revision included the addition of an Idaho Power Easement for the existing overhead power line along the easterly portion of the property. In addition, we adjusted the 20 foot landscaped buffer west to allow for this IPCO easement. This move has resulted in the reduction in size of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 3. Also, the Common Lot, Lot 2 of Block 3 has increased in size to accomodate this easement. Please distribute this revised plan to the Council members and staff. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call. IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. COPY FOR Jon Barnes, with enclosure ENGINEERS, I P.E./L.S. RECEI~fED BY: PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN COPY TO J-U-B. i ian Plannin & Zonin Mer d g g January 14, 1997 Page 21 We can't even now get on Franklin Road off Locust Grove at 8:00 in the morning, we can't get across Franklin Road. So there has to be other changes. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else before I close the public hearing? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a public hearing for annexation and zoning, it would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Chairman, could I have John Fitzgerald step into this shoe? If you don't mind I will depart. Johnson: Okay, see you Wayne, hope you feel better. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add something on a lighter note. I was interested in the school district's comments that this subdivision will add 9 school children and cause overcrowding of the schools. I didn't know if the developer addressed that. ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION, 18 LOTS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Johnson: We will automatically incorporate all of your testimony unless you have an objection to that. I will now open the public hearing. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would like to reiterate what I said before. If there are any further questions about the preliminary plat I would be glad to answer them at this point or the conceptual engineering plan. I think we have adequately addressed all of the City staffs concerns. Oslund: I have a question that may not be directly related, but maybe left over from before, Mr. Chairman. The only one was,. in the CC&R's is there anything in there about the hours of operation? ! • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 14, 1997 Page 22 Lee: Not at this point, but there could be. !just wanted to mention too that we received ACHD's final comments today, I don't know if the City staff has them yet or not. But there were some site specific requirements that they made and we have addressed on this revised submittal and incorporated. with what Gary and Shari had mentioned. Basically what they were looking at is providing a tum lane into the project off Franklin Road a decal lane and acceleration lane going out -with a painted median. There is some stacking from the east going into the project and then there is a tum lane from the west which we have incorporated. They have made some suggestions about the right of way widths and again in these commercial collector roads they are wanting 58 feet now instead of 60 like they always had before. There was .an issue about the access point to the Tamura property that was recently approved. We have been talking with Doug Tamura and he has verbally told us that he can rework his plan somewhat from one of his driveways it wasn't a street access but it was a driveway. So we can meet that minimum setback requirement that ACRD has along Franklin so that will be provided. That is just a little update on some of their comments. Johnson: Is there any reference in the ACRD study comments draft to a traffic study? Lee: No, there is no requirement, they did a brief analysis themselves based on the use and concluded that there wouldn't be one required. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Mr. Oslund Oslund: Mr. Chairman, in the staff comments there was one comment related to, maybe it was in your response. The issue being ACHD is requiring that you submit money in a trust fund for your frontage improvements. I think the City, one of the City comments was that you do sidewalk, has that issue been resolved? Lee: 'I don't know if it has been resolved. K is not too uncommon to go ahead and put the sidewalk in at this point as long as we can set it back far enough from the plan widening of Franklin Road so it can be reused at a future date. The only comment 1 made about that was we would be glad to put the sidewalk in rather than pay a road trust fee to the Highway District as long as we don't have to do both. We would rather have the sidewalk too. It makes it a much nicer finished look. Borup: That was the same question I had, the road trust fee is strictly for a sidewalk? Lee: Yes, all of the improvements on Franklin Road will be done by impact fees generally. Borup: Well that seems reasonable not to pay for it twice. Johnson: Thank you Gary. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? Did you have a comment Mr. Fitzgerald? • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 14, 1997 Page 23 Fitzgerald: No comment Johnson: I will close the public hearing at this time. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we table this item pending the results of the findings of fact. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion is made with a second that we table the public hearing on the preliminary plat until the findings of fact and conclusions of law are approved or formulated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE TAEKWONDO SCHOOL AT 706- EAST FIRST STREET BY JOHN AND BECKY SCHIEBOUT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative of the applicant to address the Commission and tell us what you are planning on doing. Becky Schiebout, 70 Southwest 7th, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schiebout: I don't know where you guys got the word private, we are sole proprietors, I don't know why it says private. Johnson: Well that makes it private, it is not public. Schiebout: We teach self defense and it would be the old Idaho Tent and Canvas building. We are going to open March 1~ hopefully if everything goes okay and it will just be a karate school. Johnson: I am sure that the commissioners have some questions. If not I will start wflile you guys think about it. Have you set your operation hours yet, what would you think your prescribed hours of operation would be? Schiebout: Nine a.m. to nine p.m. Johnson: I am assuming what you would do is different age groups, is that true? .,~ s, ~ . ~+c--~~ t oi= 2 ADA COUNTY EVALUATION Si~EET Proposed Development Name MEDIMONT SUB File No. Date Reviewed 11/07/96 Preliminary Stage X?9C Final Engineer/Developer J U B Engr / ?~~?~~? The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The following existing road names shall appear on the plat as• " FRANKLIN ROAD" " LOCUST GROVE ROAD" The followingproposed street names are approved and m8Y be used for this development "MEDIMONT" "SARGASSO" "KALiSPE~ ~ " "CALDER" "PIPER" - "~ULLV IEYY 1~ Jllllllar to "GOLFViE~~~ and theroiAro f~7fll1A+ i1P_ IICP_f~ The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTE ENCY RESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John Priester c Date ~~ ~~ Ada Planning Association Ann Hurley Date ~ I - ~ ' c1.G_~ City of Meridian Representative Date 1 ~ ' ~¢' 9~ Fire District Meridian Representative Date ~~` o 0 NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !I!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1E 18 _Section____._.._ .__ . _ , '' ~ f~ 7l~(o m ~t~~ S~~ "GR E EN CRE EK° is s imil ar to "CRA NE CREEK° and thc±referE_ cannot be used. "GA R MIN ° is similar to "C AR MEN° and therefore ca nnot b~ used "TA RA A(71 PIfJ ° is simil ar to "T AMARI NDO° and theref ore cannot be used "~~ =o ~~ n~T ° is sim ilar t o "C LARE MONT° and ther efore cannot be used "e~ ~ uT ~~~ O N° i s reserv ed fo r an other development an cannot be used "HI LL SB OR O° is a d uplic atio n and cannot be use "BA N CR OFT ° is a d uplic atio n and cannot be used "PI CA BO ° is a duplic atio n an d cann ot be used "PA Y ETT E" is a dup licati on and ca nnot be used Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 22 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, se+rAnd by Mr. Morrow that we continue the public hearing request for this annexation, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the representative of Properties West to speak first. Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I am the representative for Properties West on this application before you this evening. We also have a second Morrow: I am sorry Mr. Mayor I am in error here, I have done business and purchased lots from Mr. Barnes the last one was probably 3 years ago. I do need to ask the Council if there is the perception of a conflict of interest there and if so If I need to stand down during this hearing. Corrie: Mr. Morrow, you are not involved in this particular piece of property are you? Morrow. In no way, shape or form, but I have been involved in prior business (inaudible). Rountree: Did you get a good deal? Morrow. I paid through the nose. Rountree: I don't see a conflict Corrie: Mr. Morrow you can stay. Lee: As I was saying, of course the first hearing tonight is for the annexation and zoning and the second hearing is for the preliminary plat is being submitted. 1 will probably go through this presentation and speak to both issues and they generally come up during the discussions. I will be glad to go over any points you may have. Again the applicant is Properties West, the project is a 26 acre piece of land situated on Franklin Road west of Locust Grove. We are seeking an annexation and zoning of I- Lwhich is light industrial. The project will consist of 18 business lots, buildable lots along with 5 common lots that will be held in common ownership by the business Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 23 owners association. The lots size will range from about 41,000 feet to approximately 76,000 feet is the largest lot in that development. It is of course situated in the County right now, it is contiguous with corporate city limits of Meridian. The current zoning is RT or rural transition. Surrounding uses, it is a mixture of City and County zones. There is light industrial to the north, across Franklin Road. There is commercial general of C-G to the southwest. There are some Ada County zones that are RT to the west side of the property south and east. There are a couple of smaller areas zoned R-1 in the county, one at the northwest corner and one at the southeast. There are six single family homes on acreages adjacent to a portion of the easterly boundary. There are two single family homes at the west boundary on the north end. ~ One of those is a rental. Some of the adjacent land uses consist of light industrial, agricultural and residential. The developer intends to prepare and develop an upper end type light industrial use type park with this project. If I may t will put up another exhibit. This particular rendering should set the tone of how we envision this project developing. This is a view from Franklin Road into the entry. We will have some landscape along Franklin Road and also some landscape medians. We will be requiring some heavy landscaping within the development itself. In our application we have identified that the allowed uses within this development will conform to the City's current zoning ordinance for I-L with the exception of 8 uses we have identified in our CC&R's as not being an allowed use. Those are asphalt and concrete, automobile wrecking yard and storage, fuel yards, junk yards, mobile home manufacturing, rail road yard and shops, recycling plants and solid waste transfer stations. All of those uses will be excluded from this development. In addition, we have presented this application with support document requesting that the property be annexed and zoned I-L but not be tied to a requirement for conditional use permit on the uses. I will discuss that a little bit later in here. The services available, of course transportation is Franklin Road, a major arterial. Fire protection will be an extension of the existing city system. The water will also be included with that. Wastewater facilities are available for the site. Irrigation on this property on the landscaped areas and each individual lot will be provided through a privately held pressurized irrigation system. This particular rendering that you see there, I don't know if you can see the water amenity on the left hand side or not but our intent is to develop some ponds in the front in that 35 foot landscape strip to store some of our irrigation water. It will. probably act as some storm water retention as well. But there will be a water. amenity on both sides of the entry as you come in. We will be using that source for providing our irrigation through the system. The roadways of course are all public and we have gone to ACRD through their review process. They have made a few suggestions on right of way widths which we have accommodated in our most recent plat submittals to you. They will ail be public collector style streets 41 foot back. to back. There will be a landscaped buffer lot along the easterly boundary. Proposed a 20 foot wide landscaped area with a mixture of (inaudible). This will be set up with kind of a staggered tree placement. We propose to use an easily maintainable pasture type grass something that doesn't grow real fast but will stay green and require less mowing during the growing season. Of course it will be irrigated off our same system. There were a couple of neighborhood meetings held with the adjacent Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 24 neighbors. We sent out notices to everyone within 300 feet of the property and solicited their involvement. We met at one of the neighbors homes, the Preseley's and entertained their questions and concerns. (End of Tape) that is a concrete ditch now but it is cracked in numerous places and it leaks pretty badly. So this development, Properties West will be installing a piping system that. will provide them their irrigation water and at the same time eliminate some of those leakage. problems. I did make response to the City's staff comment letter which we had received on January 9th just prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe that is probably in your packet somewhere. I believe we have addressed most of their concerns or will in future design phases. One of the main items of discussion was. the conditional use permit requirement and subsequent to that we developed a draft copy of a proposed development agreement and we have also prepared an amended draft for the City's review. We have attempted to address what we felt are the concerns that the City has with these types of projects. We have done it in such a way that we believe we have addressed types of uses, the look of the building. The landscape requirements, (inaudible) within the CC&R's and also as an exhibit in the development agreement and it is criteria for landscaping requirements for all lots. We have required that there be a 20 foot landscape strip along all streets and that there be a 3 inch caliper tree planted at a maximum interval of 20 feet. So as you go through the project there will be a sense of continuity in the way the project appears. There will be controls on the types of buildings that will be allowed within the development. So we have a common look and a common feel of a coordinated nei~borhood. I believe that probably concludes what I have to say.this evening, if you have any questions I would tie glad to entertain those or speak to them after to the other testimony. Corrie: Thank you Gary, anyone else from the .public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: My elocution and voice are terrible. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting where this was discussed I had the same flu that Mr. Crookston did, so it sounded even worse. We picked up a copy of the transcript from that meeting and whoever transcribes that managed to get through afl of this and missed only two words in my entire testimony and they were Latin. We would like to publicly give some recognition to the transcriptionist for doing an excellent job on this, it is not an easy job. With one exception the new Councilman, you know this property quite well it was previously going to be a trailer park, Aspen Groves. It was going to be a manufactured home, high density park, Preston Aspen Groves. And then it was going to be a mixed light industrial and general commercial. The later two were .turned down, the first one was withdrawn. Most of you have walked the property I believe, you know that it is a residential area that keeps being described as industry here and a few homes there. Well yes, there are 6 of there and then across the road there are bunch more and then after that is Springv~rood Subdivision. The biggest problem we have with any Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 25 development behind us is this is also right on top of our potable water table and our only source of water. The other problem we have is the comer, because the corner is wetland and we have some very strong issues on that. But in this particular case this application does not include it. We were told by your director of planning while not included in this development, the developer has purchased or has an option to purchase that corner property for conversion of a house to a commercial building or an office building which is going to require C-G so really we have the same plan we have had before. There is nothing new here. As far as our comments are concerned at this hearing, if anybody is .looking for fire works I am sorry, we pretty well did that at Planning and Zoning and they are all incorporated into the findings of fact. There are six affected parties on the east , we have, two of those have a financial interest in the development. The four that do not put in a joint letter back in December which was incorporated into the findings of fact and which we also testified on for the most part. We think the findings of fact are very good but they have left out a few things which we have raised which weren't addressed. The first one, well they did address it. They said the findings of fact did find that it was a residential area and they put severe restrictions on this development. For example even though it is industrial cannot produce more light, more sound, more pollution than the current residential use. But there are no measures, if we are going to proceed further with this we would ask that the City of Meridian establish what the measures are that we are generating. Now this can be done simply by having your engineer set up controlled studies about how much dust we generate, how much noise we generate, how much pollution we generate and have the developer pay for the City to do these studies then we wilt have a measure. Otherwise it is going to be an issue where a machine shop is going to go behind me and I am going to say that makes more noise than I do and they are going to say no you don't. And it could end up being a whole series of lawsuits as to who is making the most noise. The second thing again is our water, this is, we have raised this a couple of times but it has never really been addressed. I don't know if the City doesn't consider this its problem or what. But the simple solution, there are three solutions to this. He is proposing to put just gravel parking and of course the truck fleet will sit in this space, and drip oil and so forth. Our water table, we have 95 foot wells but my water is down only 20 feet so we are very close. We can expect some kind of damage it is foreseeable. The first thing is he can either offer us water and sewer , I don't think there is much chance of .that. He can drill out our wells deepen them down to the same level as the City of Meridian where it is down below a pollution level or he can simply pave his parking areas. What we are looking for is the water not to seep into the ground. Third is the issue of landscaping, the findings of fact from Planning and zoning just simply say that the landscaping the transition is inadequate. What we asked for in our letter is very simple. We want a 35 foot transition. There are two reasons for that. Thirty five feet is what is being offered to the public with no interest in the property. We live by it, we think we have as much right. More practically these Scotch pines he is talking about will grow to be 15 to 20 feet in diameter. Then the five feet, at that point we want a masonry fence fluted on the inside, that will deaden a lot of the sound. That fence will be 6 feet high on a 2 foot berm that is 8 feet which is what is allowed for light Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 26 industrial under the plan. Now I know that your ordinance section 11-9-605 G specifies 20 foot minimum and what we are looking for is more than the minimum. This is an industrial park going into an R-1 residential area. Finally, it didn't come up in this meeting but it did come up in Planning and Zoning. There are a set of utility poles that services these existing houses and there is an easement on those. It has been bantered around by the developer or by the (inaudible) well it may be or it may be scriptive or he can't find one. So we went down to Idaho Power and got a copy of it and it is in your packets. Now it is in specific width, Diana Pan is the right of way and the easement specialist for Idaho Power, who simply said that easement was filed in 1965 but not to a specific width. Now at this time, Idaho Power should be contacted and they have not yet been contacted to come out and say okay there is going to be a permanent barrier put here in the way of landscaping. So they can now choose how many feet they want. I suppose that is really it again, the findings of fact as prepared by Planning and Zoning pretty much have covered our issues except these. Any questions? Morrow. Yes, Mr. Witherell, and you can give me a real brief explanation. I am not real clear in my mind in terms of the power pole easement with the service power poles that service apparently south on Locust Grove are at a distance back from Locust Grove and do they access down Franklin Road or come across the back of your property? Witherell: They come across the back of the properties. Morrow. So they would bisect this particular property that wre are talking about? Witherell: They would be between our properties, my pole,. the pole from my house is about 7 feet over into the development, the area to be developed. They are strictly for those houses, there are power lines on Franklin Road. These were put in there when that area was subdivided by, I can't remember the name of the Family, Frost I believe back in the 60's. That is why we checked to see if there was an easement. Morrow. What you are desiring to protect is that easement apparently the easement doesn't spell out a width for the easement for those power poles. Witherell: Right, it is an unspecified width but it is a specific easement, in other words it is a filed legal easement. That means the power company reserves the right now to come out there. We are asking for this landscaping and we want trees that are grow over, you know up to 30 feet. They have to be able to ge# a truck in there to take those poles out, they are getting old. Perhaps that will be next year or perhaps it will be in 20 years when the tress are good size. So they want the right to come out and say okay we want this 10 feet first before the landscaping starts. Thaat is all that easement really is. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 27 Rountree:. Have you had an opportunity to review or even see the proposed development agreement? ' Witherell: No, we have seen the CC&R's, we are flabbergasted by the CC&R's. These CC&R's have a clause in there that they will preserve every mature tree on the property as far as practical. Now there used to be one there but they cut it down before they wrote the CC&R's. So I don't think, as far as they have some legal validity but we would not want the developer to decide without any conditional use or design review what he thinks is appropriate behind us and leave it up to the CC&R's. We asked the City to set the standards we are doing that because the CC~R's -have no standards either. They simply said it is prohibited that you annoy the neighbors but what does this mean? Corrie: Any one else have any questions? Thank you Mr. Witherell. Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was swum by the City Attorney. Smith: Well I would like to clarify one thing, I understood Mr. Lee to say they would like a conditional use on this property and if I understand that properly that we would never have another say so on whatever business comes in on each lot that might affect us. I think we need that to be, in case we would object io what facility is ever put in there we need that for our own use to protect us. Secondly, there is a big issue going on right now in Boise with Home Depot with noise levels because the customer didn't meet the conditions of the agreement there and I can see that this could happen to us very easily if we don't have as Mr. Witherell said either a barrier fence or more than just trees. The trees that they are proposing are going to be about probably 5 to 6 feet in height, they are evergreens, their growth period is going to be 25 to 30 years before wee really have a barrier between our properties at this time. That isn't going to be a sound barrier in any way, shape or form during construction and during the times that that businesses or whatever happens at that time goes into pMace. I would just like to voice our concerns and hope you take them into consideration. Thank you. Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Smith? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: Mr. Lee mentioned the neighbofiood meetings where he believed he had addressed our concerns. He did discuss the landscaping at the second meeting after he discovered that a 6 foot sterilized strip as a trar~ition is not quite good enough. He offered us a 10 foot strip with some pine trees and asked which one of us is going to mow it. We complained about the chain link fence because it is not a barrier for sound or light or dust or noise. He told us it had to be a chain link fence so that when our Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 28 power poles need to be serviced that our power poles could be serviced through the chain link fence. It is easier to take that down. Completely ignoring the easement. Also, on those Scotch Pines, if you ever have any pine trees in your yard, as they grow one of the first things you do is chop off the lower branches so you can mow under them so it is not such a fire hazard and rake out the needles. That will leave us looking at tree trunks and a chain link fence if it is left as Mr. Barnes proposes. Also, I would like to show you something on the plat that was hastily covered up. On this area map it looks like the nearest housing is here at Locust Grove Heights Subdivision or over here the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. It looks like that is the nearest housing, it is light industrial along here, R-1 housing here down to here, here, almost to the freeway. Also, completely down this side of South Locust Grove Road as well. On the other side it is R-1 all the way to the cemetery, so it is surrounded by R-1 housing. It is not light industrial area, it is a residential area. The Tamura property here that has been recently annexed is buffered on Franklin Road by C-G. It is not all I-L so it is basically a residential neighborhood. I also want to reiterate how important it is to realize that on our water right, we are not sure exactly where the easterly boundaries area, we know it was awarded to us here and the westerly boundary was the cemetery. So all of this water here is used by the people along Franklin Road; Locust Grove Road, possibly beyond as our sole source of potable drinking water. If that gets polluted and with light industry. especially with these CC&R's which. are developed for an industrial area and not on top of someone's water our properties would be worthless. When we mentioned this to Mr. Barnes at the neighborhood meeting he told us it was not his problem that we should take it up with the City. So that is why we are mentioning it, he wanted nothing to do with it. When we mentioned any other concern other than the landscaping and what we wanted on the irrigation ditch he didn't respond. So the meetings, it is good that we had the meetings so that we could at least get a feel for what he was proposing but we do not feel that he addressed our concerns. Any questions? Cowie: Any I have one, we talked quite a few times about properties our there, and I am not being facetious and you know I am not. You talked about the chain link fence and the Scotch pines, do you have anything that you would like to see there since the chain line fence and they cut the trees. What would be apropos if we approve that, what would be your idea? Witherell: If it is going to be light industrial , we need a sound barrier, a light barrier something to keep the dust out. There are two directly affected parties who have chronic asthma. Mr. Lee has, in Planning and Zoning addressed the dust issue by saying that during. the construction phase he will have water trucks out. But after construction is, there has to be something long term. So we need a masonry fence. We believe it if was a 2 foot berm with a masonry fence on top it.vuould blend more with our back yards. Our property, my roof line is gosh 12 or 15 feet from the property line. Same thing with some of the others, they are right up there, right there. That is awfully close to have living next to an industrial complex. One more thing, we have contacted a couple of Realtors. Our residences if this is approved will drop in value between 20% Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 29 and 40% and that is if we are lucky enough to find a buyer who just can't wait to live next to an industrial area. So our property values will go down if this is approved. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to testify? Jim Boyd, 9272 Shalan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Boyd: The Commission, I would like to address just a few issue and I will let Gary Lee address issues regarding the issues because I think the intent is to be sensitive to the neighbors and the concerns that they are raising. I have been in the industrial real estate business for over 19 years and I have seen a lot of different types of developments throughout my career. I have to say that the development that is being proposed is certainly one of the higher caliber projects in the area. I know, one of the things that work has gone into is the covenants and the restrictions that are going in to do the development. As was stated earlier having a 20 foot landscape buffer behind the sidewalk on the street in the project. Having a requirement that the buildings not exceed 50% of the lot on the build out. Also, the requirement that buildings even though a metal building can be allowed but not be 100% metal buildings so we don't get what we see in some of the industrial developments, just a minimum type development in terms of the building. But that there be mixed exteriors beside the metal. Some of the prohibited uses trying to establish a project that fits well within the community. Our emphasis should be to establish parameters that are reasonable for all of us to live within both on the government and the private enterprise side of things. That would be all that I have to say. Corrie: Are there any questions? Any further testimony from the public at this time? Bonnie McKague, 885 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. McKague: I live right behind the police academy and we have a sound barrier of a chain link fence. If you are sitting in your house and you have about five or six police cars with sirens, lights going round and round for hours there is no protection. We hear it, it scares you half to death when it first starts because you thin my god there is a horrible accident. And you get up and look all around and it dawns on you, it is the police academy. So for them to say that a chain link fence and trees are going to stop noise we don't even have the trees we just have the chain link fence, very much mistaken. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Council, questions of Staff? Gary would you like to answer any questions that were brought up tonight? Lee: As we discussed, these things pretty much came up at the P & Z meeting during the public testimony. We are sensitive to their concems about contamination to their Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 30 drinking water. This development will proceed under the guidelines of the State and Local regulations for water quality and protection of those items. We did include in our CC&R's and also in our development agreement language concerning lighting, concerning sound and times of operation for the facilities. We are trying to accommodate some of the neighborhood concerns. The dust issue was discussed as well and we talked about after development the gravel parking lots requiring yearly maintenance and a dust abatement programs to maintain that dust level. Of course during construction water trucks are available to take care of roadwork as it commences. What is interesting about the utility poles,. the easement didn't show up on the search and on the title report. I guess I would tike to see what that easement says, if it is an easement or just a work order. The. vicinity reap was discussed, I guess I take exception to it being surrounded by R-1 uses. There are only two small R-1 zones on the county map and one of them is at the northwest canner of the development. The other properties are zoned RT and the current use is agricultural and pasture lands. Of course you have all been out there and are probably aware of what is there. We did talk about the irrigation ditch, I guess I didn't understand. Mrs. Witherell's comment . We met with Bob Smith and Mr. Pressley on the site and walked that ditch, talked about their concerns. Talked about how the piping system could be used to enhance their water delivery. Of course that is certainly our intent. If you have any other questions about the testimony I would sure address them. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions. The f~^st question is that have you done core drilling to see if there is an impervious layer of soils at some level that would protect the water supply? Lee: We have done some excavation pits there to analyze the soil types. There is a layer of hard pan that is in those excavations. In fact Nt: Smith brought that to our attention at our first meeting that there is a fairly dense hard pan layer fairly close to the surface. That is one of the reasons it has caused them some flooding problems in the past in their basements. The water that has been placed on the pasture land of this development migrates to the east because it is downhill, lands on that impervious layer and then moves straight east into their crawl spaces and trasements. That is what has been causing that problem. So there is a limiting layer between this surface area and their 95 foot level. Morrow: I guess part of the question is, is it sufficient enough to protect the domestic waters at the 95 foot level? Lee: I don't know that !could answer that v-Rithout doing some water quality testing to see what the quality of the water is now. Morrow. The next question is that in my packet there was a letter and I believe that Chairman Johnson had an identical letter from the States who apparently live to the western side of this development and it is indicated that Mr. Barnes has agreed to Meridian City Council • March 4, 1997 Page 31 install a 6 foot chain link fence with gray vinyl slating to buffer a home and has agreed to do this for the length of lot 3. This fence buffer with the vinyl slating is satisfactory to us. We understand that Mr. Bames will provide a 10 foot landscaping strip on the east side of the fence when he develops lot 3. Is that agreement actually in place between Mr. Barnes and the States'? Lee: Yes it is. Morrow. I did not see it alluded to in any place in the findings of fact and conclusions nor the development agreement of the CC~R's. Lee: I don't believe it is in the. development agreement, it certainly can be if the City desires. Morrow. Thank you I have no more questions. Bentley: Mr. Lee, you spoke of this hard pan layer, if that is going to be the case throughout your parking area how are you going to contain your run off water? Lee: Well they will have to use some sort of surface wells, maybe some bioswales there area number of ways they can do that. It v+~ll percolate to a point, but there will have to be some special consideration given to that along with sand and grease traps. Rountree: I am going to give you my trick question, define upper end? Lee: Well I guess when John and I first started talking about this project his vision was to build some facilities in there himself, have them be built in such a way that it could be partitioned off and leased to small businesses that require somewhat of a store front maybe some light retail for their business maybe IFke a plumbing business. And also have room in the building for storage of their wares or maybe a shop, something of that nature. But it was intended to be more geared to a smaller user at least on the ones that John is entertaining and that will be the ones along Franklin Road. But the sense is with the restrictions that we are imposing upon ourselves that we would solicit purchasers who are looking for a little more value in what they are buying and hopefully have a higher sense of ownership to get a better quality business in there. That is certainly the intent of the CC&R's and the requirements that we have placed for landscaping and setbacks and types of buildings and that sort of thing. Rountree: There was a comment made about a rumor that was out there with respect to the corner lot on Locust Grove and Franklin that in fact the developer had an option on that property and envisioned some type of commercial activity. Lee: Well as you know Monty McClure owned all of that property and still owns the piece that has his house on it, it stretches over to Locust Grove. I am not entirely Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 32 certain on what John's option agreemerrts read other than the fact that he has purchased part of it, but not all of it. I do know that he was skeptical about buying that other piece from Monty because of the wetland issues that Jim Wetherell had mentioned that ran along Franklin Road. Plus the fact that it lies pretty lovv and would be a difficult piece to develop. But I certainly don't think at this point he has any desire to buy that ground. You can ask him that I suppose yourself. Rountree: He looks like he might answer. Thank you, there have been several mention the possibility of a berm primarily for sound it appears but. it also could provide some visual buffering. What are your thoughts on that? If you visually buffer the development then one would wonder why the extensive landscaping would be required, is that something you have thought about? Lee: Well certainly it has been discussed, we talked about masonry walls and at one time there was mention in one of our neighborhood meetings that they would like to have 50 foot masonry wall with flags on top of it. But I took that in jest It was talked about it and there were discussions about varying sizes of landscaping ~d we ended up with the 20 feet and the Scotch pines to meet the City ordinance. A certain amount of berming I suppose .could be done but those types of things create cost problems obviously and maintenance problems too. Rountree: I have a copy of that easement for you. I have no more questions. Morrow. I would like to do a follow up questeon with respect to the landsca~re areas. Are those common areas and lots that are owned by the proposed owners association and maintained by that association? Lee: They are to the extent of the piece along Franklin road the 35 foot strip and the 20 foot strip along the east boundary. Although along the fronts of the lots where we have required in our CC&R's that they maintain a 20 foot wide landscape str~ that will be maintained by the business user: Although, I might point out that we intend to require a certain type of planting along there so that the look remains the same, the same type of tree and the same caliper. Morrow. So your proposal has the perimeter landscaping then around this as being owned by the users or the owners association and the individual lots would be landscaped to a spec provided by the CC&R's? Lee: That is correct. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Lee or the developer? Lee: 1 was just looking at this easement, the only comment I have about this is it says E '/, NE, NE %4 Section 18 for location. I don't know where that is, it covers a big piece of Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 33 ground which is typical of Idaho Power back in those days, a lot of them were that way. Just wherever the pole goes is where our easement is. But we will take care of whatever requirements they may have. Corrie: Thank you, I will close the public hearing at this time. Council any questions of staff or comments? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Shari if she has had time ~ review the updated draft of the proposed development agreement and what her comments are on that? Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Mayor and Council I did look at it briefly just tonight. I didn't want you to think because it said it was updated per our meeting that it indicated I had been through this and reviewed it and that this reflected a~ of my comments. I believe that it is possible to set up a development agreement that would be restrictive enough to cover all of our concerns. I guess I would prefer that chose uses adjacent to the residential use would be restricted to the conditional use. But again this is just a draft of the development agreement. If you wall note on exh~it B, page 8 of the development agreement, the second paragraph says that the developer acknowledges and agrees that the lot owner will not be required to submit to the City an application for conditional use permit. That should be stricken in its entirety because there may be some uses that would require a conditional use. Other than that as far as going through this entire agreement, I have not done that. Morrow. Follow up question Mr. Mayor, Shari on page 2 of the proposed development agreement, item 2 B, it says "further for those lots identified as lot 6, 7, 8 and 9 of block 3 the following permitted uses within the I-L shall be allowed arrly with an approved conditional use permit by the City." Are these the lots that in fact border the residential uses? Stiles: On the east side yes. Morrows And for those two, if 1 am interpreting this correctly for ilhose two uses, then they are proposing to do conditional uses for those two uses, then the City would set the conditions of approval for whoever might have one of those two uses or a variation of those uses. Is that correct? Stiles: That is what they are proposing. Morrow. Mr. Crookston have you seen these proposed CC&!rs and development agreement? Crookston: I have not reviewed them, I believe that I have seen them but I have not reviewed them. Meridian City Council • March 4, 1997 Page 34 Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would have one frnal question. Mr. Crookston is there a substantial difference in terms of testimony and the presentation of the proposed development agreement and CC&R's which would have occurred after the P & Z meeting that would require new findings of fact and conclusions to be written? Crookston: No there are not. Morrow. So P & Z had the opportunity to review this concept of development agreement? Crookston: I don't know about the development agreement, I am just talking about the testimony. Morrow: And CC&R's? Crookston: I don't know that the P & Z reviewed the CCBR's or not, they may have I just don't know. 1 would also say that it is rare that Planning & Zoning sees the CC&R's they may have seen them. Generally they do not, they may have in this case however. Morrow. The point of my question is that the findings of fiact from the P & Z talk about conditional uses for the lots and these have been presented spelling out conditional uses for certain lots. As a means of identifying prohibited uses such that conditional use wouldn't be needed for the remaining lots that seems to me~ to be substantially different than the P & Z findings that are prepared for us. Crookston: That is true, it is my understanding.this property is in a mixed use planned area which does require conditional uses on all proposed uses. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, follow up question for Mr. Crookston, on item 12 on page 20 of the findings of fact and conclusions, it says that it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it I-L light. industrial. Once the property was zoned I-L light industrial the applicant (inaudible) without additional approval from the City. So I am confused, by virtue of that statement does that mean conditional uses wouldn't be required? Crookston: Mr. Morrow, I did not prepare those, John Fitzgerald prepared those. So I can't specifically indicate what his referencing was or the Nanguage that he used. What I stated about it being in a mixed planned use area was just my understanding of what it was, .where the property was located and what the requirements were in our comprehensive plan and our zoning and development ordinance. Morrow: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. I guess not having any further questions and no one else (inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 35 Rountree:. I had a question, you pointed out the rnaced use comprehensive class cation of the area and it would require a conditional use. for this area. (End of Tape) what bearing does that have on it? Crookston: Councilman Rountree, it is my understanding that the comprehensive plan designates that area as a mixed planned use any. We don't have that designation in our zoning ordinance. But we have followed the guidelines of the comprehensive plan for other developments. We did that with Eagle Partners, we did that with Fred Meyer, not just Fred Meyer but that whole development And .I believe several other areas. Because it is in the comprehensive plan, the cc~prehensive plan is a guideline. It is not like a zoning ordinance which is a mandatary controlling device. It is up to the Council as to how much they want to follow the comprehensive plan. I would just say that in the past and in the recent past the City has done that. Technically you do not have to do what the comprehensive plan states. Rountree: Thank you, go ahead Mr. Morrow Morrow. I guess for point of discussion, it seems to me in light of, I would like to have the staff and the City Attorney review both the proposed development agreements and review the CC&R's, have their input back before us. If in fact that is going to be acceptable to the Council it seems to me that it aught to be part of the findings of fact and conclusions and I see if those are incotpora~ed substantial difference between the findings of fact that we have before us and what; they ought to be addressing those other issues that P & Z didn't have an opportur~ty to address. So, I guess from my perspective I would like to see these issues renewed or proposals reviewed by our staff to see if they are doable.. Both within the .ordinances and from a legal standpoint. And address the questions of conditional use on the- designated lots. I would like some input back from the development team in terms of the soils and the protection of the domestic water. So, I think that from my perspec~ve we need to do a little more work here or our staff does and kind of clean up some a#' these issues that are hanging out there. Rountree: To carry that a little further, I know in previous planning discussions that we have had specific to design review, one of the options that we have considered is development agreement to establish criteria for design review. This is really the first instance where we have seen that proposed. I would like to explore it a little more in the way you suggested Walt. It gives us an oppo~.rnity to look at it. Tolsma: I agree with both of them. Corrie: Council, would you like to continue the pui~lic hearing under these auspices or do you want to have it still (Inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 36 Morrow: I think that my preference would be to continue the public hearing so that we can have the input back from our staff from the City Attorney, the develapment team's response and certainly for those within the neighborhood for any issues that they may bring up that would be appropriate to the things that we have talked about and we are laboring with tonight. So my preference would be to continue the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would agree, I think we need to continue on with #his so we can get better input from the staff and the legality from the City Attorney. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, do we need to vote on it or do we just continue it? Crookston I think it would be appropriate to have a motion on it and vote on the continuance. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on the proposed annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties UVest Inc. Bentley: Second Rountree: To March 18tH Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties West Inc. to March 18t'' meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee indicated in the frrst portion of his presentation that he was treating the item 12 as being part of item 11. 1 think that the Council needs to probably open the public hearing and see if that is what is desired to be done and see if there are any comments from the public. And to see if either gawp wants to incorporate what they stated in the annexation for their testimony in the ~liminary plat public hearing. ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing, Gary. Gary Lee, JUB, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was s~nrorn by the City Attorney. Lee: As stated earlier in the annexation public hearing I think we addressed the items with the plat. Talked about the subdivision ~ quite a lot of detail. I will confirm to the Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: ORDINANCE #754 -ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-UMURASKO: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SE %4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance is the Michael and Michelle Murasko property. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have the Ordinance #754 read in its entirety? .Entertain a motion on ordinance #754. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance #754 with suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept Ordinance #754 with suspension of rules, roll call vote? ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: ORDINANCE #755 -ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-UPROPERTIES WEST: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LAND WITHIN THE NE %4 OF SECTION 18, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This is an ordinance for Mr. John Bames Properties West Inc. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #755 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #755 with suspension of rules. Morrow. Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we adopt Ordinance #755 with suspension of rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 1, 1997: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST: Meridian City Council ~ • April 15, 1997 Page 3 Corrie: At this time 1 will open the public hearing and invite a member of the subdivision or firm to speak first. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: At the conclusion of the last meeting Councilman Rountree requested that we contact Idaho Power and discuss their requirements for an easement that would be situated over an existing overhead power line that traverses along a line that it is. adjacent to and pretty much on the property line in a portion of~ this subdivision. Which I have done, I talked to the representatives, they are aware of the blanket easement that is now in effect. We will proceed with a relinquishment of a portion of that easement up to a point that they have designated to us. Along those lines we have adjusted the preliminary plat. It is a varying width along the east boundary of lots I believe it is 7, 8, 9 and 10. So we shifted the 20 foot landscape buffer to the west and allowed room for that public utility easement. I believe you all should have copies of those revised drawings. I would be glad to answer any further questions or concerns you may have about that revision. Bentley: I don't have any questions on the new mapping but I still have a question concerning the landscaping, the berming, the graveling of the parking areas for the yards. I haven't seen anything or heard of anything concerning, has this been decided out and how it is going to be done. Lee: Well the presentation and the CC&R's and the suggested development agreement included of course the landscape buffer that we have presented earlier, the 20 foot strip along the rear lots if that is what you are speaking of. Also it spoke to the type of servicing that would be allowed in storage areas as being gravel. As far as drainage and. those parking areas even in the front they will have to use best management practices in treating that groundwater or storm water either through bioswales or sand and grease traps or some sort of method that is acceptable (inaudible). Bentley: I am still really concerned about the drainage, the water issues and the graveling of the parking with all the various uses that are going to be there. I am not so sure that paving isn't going to be the answer to help protect these areas in there. Lee: I guess the thing, if you are talking about protecting we are trying to decide what it is you are trying to protect. I have to assume it is the ground water layer that those wells are growing from for domestic use.:As I presented to you previously there are layers of clay beneath the surface that act as the cut off layers that protect it now from contamination to a point. The types of run off that you will have from these parking lots will be limited to probably grease and oils from engines and equipment to a certain degree (inaudible). Those types of things can be treated either in sand and grease traps, or in bioswales to help remove the grease before it goes into the groundwater. Again even if it does penetrate the surface which it will, it will percolate and it goes Meridian City Council ~ • April 15, 1997 Page 4 through the colichi layer and it probably will in places it is still protected by layers of clay in that strata, it is no different than anywhere else in town, it is the same type of situation. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Lee? Thank you Gary, I will invite the public to enter extra testimony at this time. Jim Witherell, 215 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: First of all I want to say that you have hurt my feelings terribly. In reading through your findings of fact it said that I am standing in the way of progress of the City of Meridian. I will remind you that I have represented the City of Meridian on the Ada County Centennial Committee and I was the President of the Historical Society for two years the year before and during the centennial and now somehow I am standing in the way of the City. 1 have to apologize I haven't moved. On the point of law, most states have a law for nuisance, elsewhere it has tanned quiet enjoyment in Idaho it is termed comfortable enjoyment and has been since 1916. The law does not say, this is Title 52 Idaho Code, it does not say that comfortable enjoyment is a good idea. It does not say that the City might want to award us some degree of comfortable enjoyment. It says enjoyment is inviolate individual right, intnasions by noise, dust, water, light and even property value loss where it is not the single head of damage are nuisances and are specified in the code per se or as in res judicata. Where nuisance affects one person it is a private nuisance. Where it affects more than one person it is a public nuisance. Light industry next to residential could be considered a public nuisance. It is certainly going to affect more than just one party. You have opted to annex the property next to us as light industrial which we are a very low residential area. So potential for nuisance is extremely high. However we do recognize that you have also opted in your findings of fact to attempt to regular nuisance through conditional use and through the plat, we thank you for this. You have reserved an annexation the right to impose conditions in excess of the conditions otherwise specified in either the comprehensive plan or the City ordinances we thank you for that too. Therefore we request the following conditions toward the mitigation of nuisance. One, easements, this is not an nuisance but by now it apparently has been decided what the Idaho Power easement is. We would also need to point out that our irrigation ditch runs right in the middle of that easement. This is called an historic irrigators right or easement. We don't know if this will affect your decision on how wide things should be but you should know, your City Engineer should know that there is that easement within the easement. Item 2, yards, your City ordinance says that they cannot have a contractors yard within 300 feet of a residence. We have dealt with this developer enough to know that we can get into scraps over definitions. You can have a contractors yard which means a contractor doing business such as a plumber or you can also have storage yards, working yards, service yards and for that matter lumber yards which would not be covered. These can produce more noise, dust and light than any contractors equipment. This may be met in the ordinance you meant all of these things but the term is contractors yards, we would request under your powers that you have given yourself in your findings of fact that all • • Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 5 yards regardless of description be setback 300 feet. That takes care of a major dust issue and noise issue. Landscaping, this is the big one, your ordinance requires only a minimum of 20 feet of adequate landscaping. However you now have the right as Council or even under Idaho Code 53-334 to determine what is adequate. Now consider first, this is not just a landscape, this is a severe transition, it is from industrial to low density residential. It is a severe transition from Industrial to rural. The location is on the approach corridor to the City and in the public view because of the open areas presented by the residents. Therefore it is not a typical situation. We do not believe that the minimum of 20 feet is adequate or appropriate. This is a highly unique situation which we think has .been encountered by Council for the very first time. Second, the landscaping is the first line of defense against intrusion of nuisance or industrial into residential rights. The function of this is more than mere landscaping, there is a partial nuisance abatement in addition to being a transition. Therefore we are requesting a 35 foot setback exclusive of any easements. This is very logical, we are asking for 3 foot rise over 2 feet on a low berm and then dropping sharply on the industrial side. This still allows five feet for some sort of landscaping on the inside so that the people on the other side are not looking at a brick wall. We are asking for a masonry fence fluted like a sound fence with fluting face in the inside. At the apex of this berm (inaudible) we are asking for this masonry wall to be 6 foot in height. This is a total of 8 feet which is allowable under your ordinance for light industry. In this setback between the wall and the residences we are requesting evergreen trees. Now so far all we have heard is that they are going to be some sort of trees as described on the plat which is when Mr. Lee was asked about this he said he didn't have any idea of what was intended this was the landscapers development. He had better know now because we are to the point where it has to be done. We want these trees on a 15 foot hatched spacing so they will absorb dust and light and not just in a straight line. We are further requesting these threes be a 3 inch caliper. We are further asking this berm be continuous that is not broken into chunks behind the house, the last developer attempted that. Your required a masonry fence, he said behind this house I'll put a masonry fence, behind over there I'll put a chain link fence. Remember this will be seen by the public it should be continuous, this is a piece of landscaping into the City of Meridian in and of itself. We ask that all landscaping be done at the start of the project and not in phases. At the last Council meeting your director of development said that usually landscaping is done in phases but usually this is a cedar fence between residential properties. In this instance the landscaping is also part of a legal issue and it will have to grow in order to provide any mitigation. We anticipate by the time phase 2 is started there will only be just enough height for the trees to have grown to be of any mitigating affect. In addition as most of us are retiring we will be selling our homes within a few years we will have to disclose by law that there is an industrial park going in behind us. We cannot take them out to our. back fence and say now please imagine a berm back here. This puts us, the developer has syringed about this unfair disadvantage in marketing. We are not at a terrible disadvantage in trying to sell our houses. Item 4, the buildings, since we are now assuming the buildings will be at the back of the lots because of the 300 foot contractor yard. They are now closer to the residences then the residences are to each other. This raises the ante for intrusion of light and sound and risk of fire and explosion. • Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 6 We request that all of the buildings in the conditional use area be of single story height so they do not reflect sunlight or heat. Be constructed of masonry to contain fiery explosion and retain sound. I have already been told by my insurance carrier that our rates will go up because we are next to a risk. Have all delivery and truck traffic to the front including the warehousing to reduce noise. And have low density lighting not higher ten feet to reduce light intrusion. Nature of the businesses, under the conditional use we anticipate warehouses and offices as these are the most compatible. There is nothing that. says he cannot put very nice in with his light industrial. However warehousing can induce hazardous material. It was testified by Mr. Lee that all hazardous material will be stored and handled under the. regulations of government agencies. Regulation by government agencies does not -limit nuisance. It was determined in State v. Hanomine that even though industry is regulated and correctly regulated it is no barrier to intrusion. So we are asking that outside the comprehensive plan which we realize is a suggestion but it was suggested by your Planning and Zoning that no hazardous material be handled or stored near the residences. WE also ask for the obvious reason that under the conditional use area that the hours usually be confined to 8 to 5. Dust, dust it a per se nuisance but is this particular two of the affected have dust as a serious health problem which could be life threatening. We request a reduction of dust by simply not creating any. That is simply under your authority requiring that all of the services be paved. If there is no gravel or dirt then there is no dust. Paving would also mitigate traffic noise. Finally water, water is a tough one. We have raised domestic water several times in public comment but it is never addressed in findings of fact other than to be noted. This is perhaps the most serious intrusion because without water we don't have any housing. Inevitably this would result in a lawsuit because we cannot risk contamination of water. However, we have several options on those, we ask that one the developer provide water and sewer to the adjoining residences at his expense as part of this plat. It seems absurd that city water and sewer within a few feet of our homes while we are at risk of losing our water. Alternately as with dust mitigation requiring all streets and yard services to be paved throughout the development, not just on the conditional use side, throughout with formal storm draining. This would reduce the risk of contamination and surface would be totally controlled. On a parting note on water contamination we again do repeat that we are working on the authority of the geology department of Boise State University. They said it would be contaminated we believe them. Mr. Lee previously testified and testifies now that our water heretofore has not been contaminated by E-coli from cattle manure. What falls out of a truck and falls out of a cow are totally different. Manure is biodegradable, chemicals like battery acid, antifreeze, oil, gasoline, car washing soap are not. They will leach, E-coli will be killed in the first five feet. Corrie: Thank you Jim, does anybody have any questions of Mr. Witherell? Anyone else from the public that would like to give testimony at this time? Ann Witherell, .215 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council • • April 15, 1997 Page 7 Wetherell: Gentlemen, you have indeed taken on an awesome responsibility in protecting our property rights. I would ask that on future plats so that you can be reminded that we really are there and we not just whistling Dixie. That Mr. Lee include our roof lines on the plat so that you can see how close we are to the property to be developed. In some cases it is less than 10 feet. Also the location of the well heads, it doesn't matter which direction the subsurface water goes when your well is right on the property line. I wouldn't trust any studies to protect me in that case. Mr. Pressley's well is less than 6 feet, I know the Smith's well is right up against the property line. Ours sets back about 30 feet, we are. the furthest one. So if you could pleases instruct Mr. Lee to include those two items on his plat, it would be our minds at ease. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Robert Smith, 335 S. Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Gentlemen, I would like to bring up a concern that Mr. Bentley has about the graveling of those yards. I too know that will leach into 'our soils and the only way you can really use a proper grease trap or anything is either have asphalt or concrete to collect all of your waste water so that you can leach or settle the amount in a grease trap. You can't do it in a gravel yard it will leach before it ever gets to a grease trap. Secondly I am a consultant for Hinckels and McCoy electrical consulting firm and we are now working on a project called Mahogany Park at the corner of South Eagle Road and McMillan. They are building a masonry fence right now, it is 10 feet high to buffer that Mahogany Park from Albertson's future store. It is already in progress and being built. So I do know this is a problem in other areas and the developer at that project is taking care of that before it becomes a crisis. So I would ask that maybe you have consideration for this fence. It seems like the fence isn't mentioned too clearly in any of his options. But we really need that fenced addressed to give us the privacy and seclusion that we need. I believe that is all thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to speak. Hearing none, Mr. Lee or Mr. Barnes any comments at this point? Council, questions or comments of staff. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for staff, I would like to ask Shari about her comments. for buffering and paving issues. Stiles: Would .you like me to address the buffering? Bentley: Please Stiles: Without any known uses it is hard to know how much buffering would be needed there, it is quite a change to go from a low density residential to a light industrial area. The buffering that has been proposed so far is landscaping in that 20 foot strip, I don't know anything about berming or anything of that nature. I would think in 20 feet they Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 8 could have at least a 3 foot berm. The trees, there has been no designation of spacing of any trees or types of trees. The fence I think has been proposed as chain link that is what the developer has proposed. You need to remember that we don't have a development agreement on this yet. A lot of what your decision on this preliminary plat issue will determine a lot of the conditions in that development agreement. I am not going to be able to arbitrarily put conditions in a development agreement that aren't in the ordinance unless that is the decision of Council. If it is something, it may be something that the Council wants to extensively review that planting strip or any fencing. But what has been proposed right now is some landscaping in that 20 foot strip, some trees and a chain link fence. Rountree: I have a question for either Gary . or John. Speak a little more specifically about storm drainage, I know the plat indicates storm water storage in the front of the plat and the landscaped areas I assume the grassy swales whatever. Provide some specificity about the buffering, trees, tree types, tree heights, possibly spacing or not necessarily spacing. Placement and fencing. I have heard different things from different folks and 1 would just like to get it in the record. Lee: That landscape strip was discussed quite thoroughly in previous public hearings and I will rehash it again. The plan was to provide the 20 foot of landscaping in accordance with the City ordinance requirements and we did identify a scotch pine evergreen tree to be installed along that landscape strip. There was a plan developed and shown to the city and I think Shari has that in her office now on what we had proposed for landscaping of the buffer. I don't recall what the spacing was through there or the size of caliper but I think in your own ordinance you have a minimum of 3 inch caliper trees which we would have to adhere to and I think our CC&R's address that as well. The fencing, we proposed a chain link fence on the opposite side of the berm of the landscape strip. So that the full enjoyment of that buffer would be by the residences and not the business users. So in effect that land is given up for any use any intensive purposes by the developer to those people. The storm drain systems there are a number of ways that storm water can be handled in different situations. Some of those yards that will be put in there depending on the use will be for different things. It will be storing of equipment, storing of supplies or merchandise, we don't know how much traffic will be there or how much we can expect to generate in grease and oils and one thing and another. The typical to date has been to collect that storm water in low spots through drainage grate for the sand and grease trap and then go into a subsurface drain field similar to a septic tank system and dispose it in the soil: It then percolates down through that soil and further treats itself before it enters a ground water situation. Other methods that have .been widely accepted and used in Oregon and Idaho is starting to use it more and more is the use of bioswales and that is usually in shallow trenches if you will with grass to help treat oils and it is a very effective. way to remove those oils and petroleum products. It also allows for (inaudible). I think it is going to be probably a combination of methods depending on the user. Those methods are reviewed by your public works department to be sure that they meet certain criteria and they will all have their own set of circumstances that they will have to design too. It shows a scotch pine Meridian City Council ~ • April 15, 1997 Page 9 on that landscape plan and again 3 inch would be the minimum caliper. I don't believe it shows the spacing (inaudible) 10 foot spacing and it is an alternating spacing. Again that was suggested by the landscaping architect that John uses on most of his projects for that type of species of tree. It will give us some room for growth and to make sure they will be a healthy tree. We talked about and proposed a low maintenance type of grass on the soil beneath the tree, something similar to a pasture grass that would be easy to mow and fairly, keep it fairly short, it will be sprinkled off the pressure irrigation system. Did that cover all of your questions in there Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Yes, thank you. Corrie: Gary, do you know what your percentage of paving will be compared to gravel at this point? Lee: Well the building and the front parking lot will consume at least 50% to 60% of the lot. So, conceivably there would be storage areas in the rears of these lots and take the balance of the property. Again that will be an individual users preference. Some of those people won't want to have gravel because of the equipment they are using, forklifts as an example. (inaudible) Morrow. I have a follow question Mr. Lee, the issue then in terms of whether it is a gravel portion or the lot or not will be strictly up to the individual user under that scenario it is conceivable that all of the lots ;could have totally paved lots is that correct? Lee: That is right. Morrow. The second issue is with respect to dust and gravel and lots, it does in the development agreement or CC&R's require a yearly application of dust control. Lee: That is correct there is a dust abatement program. Morrow. Thank you Rountree: I guess I will just point out on that issue for those that might be concerned about oil being used for dust abatement that is against State regulations. Oil would not be a dust abatement technique unless it was in the form of asphalt. Lee: Right, there are plenty of other products on the market that can be used. Morrow. As a current example, the heavy industrial dealers on the south side of the freeway being Western Equipment and the others are currently using those programs on an annual basis and they are all gravel. CESCO will be using that also. The reason that they are gravel is because of tracked vehicles. Corrie: Any further questions? Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 10 Tolsma: On the lighting, how is your exterior lighting going to be on your buildings. Will there be night lights or worker lights? Lee: I am sure there will be security lights of some sort on all of these structures front and rear just for that purpose. It won't be a light that you would see at an Albertson's parking lot because there won't be traffic there at night, it will just be a security light so it will be a low candle power situation. Tolsma: One of the comments brought us was they would like to have the lights less than 8 feet if there is an 8 foot high wall there, how high are your lights planning to be out there. Lee: Well again those are specific items on buildings during the plan review. If there was a number that should be used to limit glare as much as you can we would look at that it could be 8 feet or 10 feet. There could be special diffusers on those light frxtures so you don't get the light going onto the neighboring property. Tolsma: Either that or motion detector lights. Lee: Motion detector lights could work too. It is not like a situation where you have to light where you have to provide safety for customers like you would in a Fred Meyers or Albertsons parking lot. It is a different situation. Tolsma: So really then it is going to be diffused so it really doesn't affect the buildings that are going to abutted against it? Lee: Well some of them wilt be on the buildings, some may be on maybe some kind of low lying landscape type lights or maybe a small pole. I don't expect to see any large poles out there. Maybe in the front parking lot in case the employees want to work in the evenings for their security. I wouldn't expect to see it in a storage yard. Tolsma: What I was getting at, I didn't want it to affect the property owners that are abutted up against this light that is (Inaudible). That will be (inaudible) Corrie: Any other questions? At this time I will close the public hearing, Council what is your pleasure? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision by Properties West subject to all staff and ACRD conditions, subject also to the successful completion of the CC&R's and development .agreement. And that the requirement for the conditional uses for the adjacent lots as spelled in the findings of fact and conclusions be written into the development agreement and the CC&R's. Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 11 Tolsma: Mr. Morrow, I have a question, do you wish this preliminary plat to go forward before we review the development agreement? Morrow. Well the approval is subject to the development and what would happen is by virtue of this motion is that the staff and the developer would come to an agreement on their concept of the development agreement then we as a Council would approve that. So the purpose of the motion is to allow that work to begin now at the juncture of the preliminary plat so that the staff and developer can have their best shot at trying CC&R's and the development agreement. Then bring that before the Council with its approval or for its approval or suggestion without giving them that sense of direction at this juncture (inaudible). Tolsma: I would like to see the CC&R's and the Development Agreement Corrie: Point of order first we need to have the motion and second then we can have discussion. So continue with your motion Mr. Morrow. Morrow. That was the end of the motion Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision subject to the conditions as said in the motion as stated, now further discussion. Morrow. This issue is in my mind you bring both of those things together. We have another shot at the final plat, the approval of the final plat process. We also have to approve the development agreement and the CC&R's. So I want to see those things press forward and have the staff and the development team take their best shot at those CC&R's and development agreement (inaudible). The purpose of the motion is to get that process going so that we can get the documents before us either approve them or make suggestions in terms of what changes we might want to see and press on from there. If you will recall the proposed development agreement and the proposed CC&R's is a new concept for a subdivision development within our City. So, it appears to me that the best way to move the process forward was to get the preliminary plat going and. to have those things come in conjunction with each other. The bottom line is that we still have essentially three more shots at getting those things done as we want them done. Corrie: Did you get an answer? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to see these other documents come forth reflecting both the Council's and the staff s input on these final decisions. Corrie: Any further discussion? Call for the vote, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council April 15, 1997 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #756 -ANNEXATION/ZONING TO T-E/B.W. INC.: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE E '/z SOUTH '/ NW %. SW %4 OF SECTION 8 T.3N. R.1 E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This is an ordinance on the B.W. Inc. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #756 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #756. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt Ordinance #756 with a suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve Ordinance #756 with suspension of rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Tolsma -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Morrow -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: TABLED APRIL 1, 1997: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMY BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: Corrie: Council, discussion, pleasure? Morrow. Refresh my memory, I am looking to see why we table that from before? Rountree: We needed the annexation. Morrow. And the annexation was just completed by what we adopted. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the conditional use permit for the construction of Meridian Middle School Academy by Joint School District No. 2. Rountree: Second Corrie: Discussion, Counselor, do we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law, I don't think we did. Morrow. We did, if memory serves me we tabled this just for the technicality of the ordinance adoption. i • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEET{NG: Apri115 1997 APPLICANT: Properties West ITEM NUMBER; 4 REQUEST• Public Hearina• Request for Preliminary Plat for Medimont Subdivision AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS ~q~ rvl i l~~-eS ~~ ~~ ~r~' OTHER: Ali Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. t Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 19 into a development agreement and that if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended are not agreeable with entering into the development the property should not be annexed. Rountree: Second } Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision as read, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, t would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for annexation. Tolsma: Second Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18,1997: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST INC: Cowie: At this time I ,will open the public hearing and invite the representative of the subdivision to come forward. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was swum by the City Attorney. Lee: I believe the continuation this evening was coupled to the annexation request on item 3. At this point I would welcome any questions that the Council may have concerning the preliminary plat as submitted. Cowie: Any questions? Rountree: Just an observation, it appears to me that some of the conditions of annexation are going to impact your plat as presented. I would suggest that we either continue the hearing or Lee: Are you talking about the utility easements? Rountree: Yes Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 20 Lee: Yes, you are right, it may impact a few of those lots on the second phase of the project. I did walk that site before the last public hearing to take a look at those poles for myself. Part of them on the northerly .portion I would say at least half are located about 30 off of the property, on Monty McClure's property. That won't affect phase 1, phase 2 there are some poles there that are situated near the boundary, I think there was one that was on our property and the rest were on the- neighbors property. But, whatever easement that Idaho Power would require on the maintenance of those poles we will have to talk to them and decide what it should be and. identify it on our preliminary and final plats and shift everything over that amount. I don't think it will be much. Corrie: Any other questions of Mr. Lee? Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney Witherell: We would like this extended too, we don't have any idea of what these conditions are that are being imposed, we are being held in suspense. So before I go shooting my mouth off on what we think we should have which we may have already got we would like this extended. Thank you Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Council, questions of staff? Do you wish to continue the public hearing? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing to the April 15. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? Question Gary would that give you enough time? Lee: (Inaudible) Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BY MERIDIAN LDS CHURCH: Morrow: Mr. Mayor on that set of findings of fact and conclusions of law I have a question with respect to on page 6, item 7, I for the life of me can't figure out this is supposed to be part of these findings of fact and conclusions. Item 7 says that there does not appear, there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the applicant. If the variance is not granted the house would be required c~ u•B ~~ J-U-B INEERS, Inc. 250 S. .;chwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/3 76-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 To : Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the following items: ®ATTACHED ^ SHOP DRAWINGS ^ PRINTS ^ COPY OF LETTER ^ CATALOG SHEETS OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/10/97 Project No. 11130-02 PROJECT NAME: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION PROJECT MANAGER: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: Reduced Copies of Revised Preliminary Plat R~CEI'~IED APR 1 5 1997 Cif Y OF ~ERID~AN ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER via ^ SAMPLES ^ SPECIFICATIONS ^ CHANGE ORDER ® Reductions COPIES DATE or No. DESCRIPTION 10 4-8-97 Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and 2 -Reduced Copies - 8 1/2" x 11" THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ® FOR APPROVAL ®AS REQUESTED ^ FOR SIGNATURE ^ FOR YOUR USE ^ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ^ FOR BIDS DUE , 1994 ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Will: Enclosed are the reduced copies of the revised Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and 2 per your request. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call. IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. ~-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. COPY FOR JOn Barnes SIGNED: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. RECEIVED BY: DATE: PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN COPY TO J-U-B. 5 ~• w fib ~! 'AJM100 r01 1lrlii - : y ~ 1 ti 'r t •a '~ •ai '-n i fA i q- wM[_ ~~~01^~'7~f lrli ~ilrifi~ `i 4i LIR aaaaar faer® pus s .arv~ flair ~. ~ ~~~~~ ~.g-.,..~~.,;^..r• ~ ~a~.,,.~.,.~. ~ a ggg p • ~ C ~ S '~ ~tY3~JIH f'A'r i ililllYaa • Oa MOMMIOaM lal0^ia .rr iSs'~e s. r r.mTw ~ ~ ~ ~ Q y S~A7C1~ Ji ~~~~R ~ ~ ~J~aa ~ Q t ,.~~~ ~ ~ ,~ i ~ '~ , ~i : ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ,,;iii j II I z: ~ t e =: : d ~ ~ ~_ s 1 ~~ ~ I I, .~ -~, 1 I - !!y ' a•m a ~~ ^ ~~53 ~r I -f -- - ~ ~ ~, ., ,~~ ., !~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~- - - ~~ a~ a r ~; ~ ; ,- a ~ - J ^ I ` a ~ I ~ e ~ ^ 1~3 f ~ i +a ~ ~~ 1^ ..L.. ~ • ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ 4s~ 7~ 7 11 f a s '7i '-n i rA i q- r.~~is~awp~ • 1/ tY01100 M~IIifN1~ F. irowrisoi ®wiw w~ ., ~ .«. ~sa~ g~m~ .. w.. t~ ± Y J N .irr !~i•11~ ~Olb ~^~: -wso'i'Fs'ir~'T: p.s"°'.~.' ~ ~ t N '6 '~ 'fY33M1!!N~ M-~ h- mnrrw i of 'rornq~» iMOi®~ s a $ ~ r r 3 a ~ ~; `!~'~ # ~ ~ i ~ # ~ ~ a ; ~ +} +~~ ,~'~j iii ~ i ' '~ j~~ ~~, ~,# 1 tf j~ ~ i }~ ... o, t 3 i . „ IO ~j iU ,~~ ~~~12~ ~~~i ~3 ~~ ~t ~ ]'~ ~ii ~+ ~ j~ ~ i I I I i i I! I i I I I I I * Q~ ~ IZ , • .. s _ e= i ~~9~ §~~ N ~ l ~; ~~ • _ ~. = _ _ .Oi'Rtl 3_f 1. _ _ ~~ ~i y aa. ~ isiao+ : ~ ~ •3 4Q '~ Y • t ~ ~~ ~~ s • • • r ~ _ -- ~3 - - - i ~- - -- - - 1 _ ~ ~7~ • ~ J' ,. ~ ~ ~ .~ nom s ~ + ~ r ' ! ~~ 5 ,,. 1 ~ • i ~ 1 ~ ~ J {+ ~ ` ~ Q • ° ~ _ 9 ~~ i _` ~ ~ ~• ~~ ~ ~ ~ y~ $as W;j ~ i "4i< ~ - W ~+ N Z ~a „.zo JJ ~ ~ J[O 1. ~ 1 ~o~ ~ ~ ~a~a~ ~~ !!! ~dC ~-H O pjZ2 k W< a D O 1 l J-U-B EN~'INEERS, Inc. c u•B ~~~ 250 S. Beechwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/3 76-73 3 0 FAX: 2081323-9336 TO : Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the following items: ®ATTACHED ^ SHOP DRAWINGS ®PRINTS ^ COPY OF LETTER ^ CATALOG SHEETS ~TTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 4/8/97 Project No. 11130-02 PROJECT NAME: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION PROJECT MANAGER: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: '~ Revised Preliminary Plat per Council Direction' ~C~~ •~~7 r~tY OF M~IWAr ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER via ^ SAMPLES ^ CHANGE ORDER ^ SPECIFICATIONS COPIES DATE or No. DESCRIPTION 10 4-8-97 Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and 2 -Revised to add Id. Power Easement on East Bdy. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ® FOR APPROVAL ®AS REQUESTED ^ FOR YOUR USE ^ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^ FOR BIDS DUE ,1994 ^ FOR SIGNATURE ^ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Will: Enclosed are prints of the revised Preliminary Plat, Sheet 1 and the revised Conceptual Engineering Plan, Sheet 2. The revision included the addition of an Idaho Power Easement for the existing overhead power line along the easterly portion of the property. In addition, we adjusted the 20 foot landscaped buffer west to allow for this IPCO easement. This move has resulted in the reduction in size of lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 3. Also, the Common Lot, Lot 2 of Block 3 has increased in size to accomodate this easement. Please distribute this revised plan to the Council members and staff. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call. IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. J- ENGINEERS, In COPY FOR Jon Barnes, with enclosure SIGNE Gary .Lee, P.E./L.S. RECEIVED BY: DATE: PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN COPY TO J-U-B. ~ ~ ADA COUNTY EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name MEDIMONT NO. 1 File No. Date Reviewed 06/19/97 Preliminary Stage Final XXX Engineer/Developer J U B Engr /Properties West Inc The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Ordinance. •The followina existing street name shall appear on the plat• "E FRANKLIN ROAD" "S MEDIMONT WAY" is aligned with "N ADKINS AVE" to the north and so shall carry *hp name "S ADKINS WAY" "E PIPER CT " is approved and shall appear on the plat The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. . ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, Ada County Engineer John Priester Ada Planning Association Ann Hurley City ofMeridian{impt} Fire District Meridian Representative Representative Date ~~ Date Co ~ 19 - ~ ~-- Date lo~~-~~ Date ~ Z ~ "~ NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1E 18- Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS ~ TR\SUBS\COUNTY. FRM ATIVES OR DESIGNEES ~ ~ ADA COUNTY EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name MEDIMONT SUB File No. Date Reviewed 01 /09/9 ~ '~- Preliminary StageXXXX _ Final Engineer/Developer J.U.B. Enar./ Properties West -Inc. The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the r~lat as: "E FRANKLIN ROAD" "S LOCUST GROVE ROAD" The rp_oposed street shown as "S MEDIMONT WAY" is in alignment with "N ADKINS AVE." to the north in section 7 3N 1 E and shall be named "S ADKINS WAY" on the plat. The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, AGENCIIiREPRESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES Ada County Engineer John Priester Ada Planning Association Ann Hurley City ofMeridian Date Date Date Fire District Meridian Rep~sentative ~ Date NOTE: A-ropy of this evalu ion sheet must be presented to the Aca County Engineer at the time of signing the "final at", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1 E 18 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS TR\SUBS\COUNTY. FRM ~J / ~~ ~ ADA COUNTY EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name MEDIMONT SUB File No. Date Reviewed 01 /09/98• ~ ~ Preliminary Stage XXX Final Engineer/Developer The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Ordinance. The followina oronosed gtraPt namPC re approved and shall apoea~ on tha plat aS• "F_ PIPER rT" ~~ „E ~ 1 N ST .. The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTE G CY, RE RESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES a Ada County Engineer John Priester ~ Date l' Ada Planning Association Ann Hurley ~ - Date ~ ' ~ ' ( ~t-- City of Meridian Representative ~'~- J4_ (~_ p p. Date 1-~O -9~ //-,'' G~ Fire District Meridian Representative ~lJ ~G~ll~`'-Date - ~d' / NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!!! Sub Index Street Index 3N 1E 18 Section NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS ~~. ~~ ~_9-`~7 TR\SUBS\COUNTY.FRM ~I ~. i z v I C D v _ I o m 306' .r ;~ m 200' i -- ~ = _ ~, ~o~ ~.~ ~,~ + ~ ~: ~ A N ~ ~~ ~ V Zr ~ ~ Q ~ 0 N _ ~~ D U ~ m ~ ~ ~ N A~ - 7C . . I c0 < D ~ ~ A mD ~ ~ ' 291 y2 ( i I ;~ - 65'80 6~ S `~ o w r ~ " c~N~~O D ~ N A D UNPLATTED O 1 y` - S. LOCUST GROVE ROAI I -- _ i N 00'31'13" E 1329.55 D N m N N N ~-~ D N m ~~ ~~ N ~p D ~ A ~i 246' 172' 18G OJ ~ `.,^ L CN ~ ~ U N ~ ~_ (r p ~ ~~ ~ N D V m D V J. A _ A S(; ~ 172' S. MEDIMO 149' 149' 1 _ _ N m N m N -+ --v oN o= p t0 O~ V N m ~ ~ ~ a- N L A {/~ m A U) O O A (n .-__ __ ,o - --- --- --- ----~ S 01'25'43" . W 520.56' - - --+~ N C ~ r- O N ~ ~ ~ ~0~~ N ~? ~ n ~A D m ~ Z r ` ~ .y o rn~ N N A ~ N r ~ -.~ ~ ~ ~ - t ( ~ r r ' 28T '~ r ~~ a u v 1 ~ N A i ~ v N ©_ t~ ' v c a rs n i GJ ' ~ w D N CO A U! '~1 j .p i ~ ~ j •y 0~ ~ -+ fV w N v 149' 149' Cn ' U1 ~ W j I i I ~ ~ oN I o n+i ~ ~ ~ tp V ~ , N O _I ~ ~ O ~ y A ~ C '~1 ' ~ _ 1 • i BEARINGS UNPLATTED w ; UNPLATIED r 2654.20' z ~ ~' a m o N 89'46 '18" E 847.60' - _ . _ ~ ___ _~ E. FRANKLIN ROAD /`. -... _: fl -- - - o ~ V - - - - _ - - - 1 ~ 480.70' / ie t7 T ; LANDSCAPE LOT, WATER AMENIn 17204 Si 1 ~ W LANDS AP . . I t STORY WATER I~ - ' ^ STORAGE 0.40 Ae C E LOT, AMENin WATER 0.2 ~ ~ I It STORY WATER STORAGE 10097 SFI n i I 247 241' 288' n I ' .~ a rr ~ ~ ° I LO T,1, BLOCK 2 I f I I y ' o° $ I I ~ 2 I ~ 3 fg 3 " 59,342 SF n 55.652 SF I I 64,852 SF 1.75 Ae °' 1.28 Ae I 1-49 Ac JO' Jo' I 20' unun, wmcAnoN J~• t DRAINAGE EASEYEN i f I 1n ~ I 280' 0'~ ^ 21.8' --"'I 12' UTIUn EASEMENT ~ E. PIPER CT rj:.'L= I I . II - 4 ? ' n ~~/ 42,000 SF I I N 219' + '~ 0.96 Ac I ; 30' Jo' I >` ~ I ~+ o ~ ~ 3 I I . ^ ~ ~ M BLOCK 3 I °o ~ I q 5 ss ° 4 7 = ~ ~+ 5 tiw Iy F Q I'n '; 75,991 Si , m z SI - 1.p5 Ac ~~.II ~ I 41,720 SF 0 96 A L07 2 I /'j~ryDSCAPE lOT O ~ ,' 1.75 Ac r '. p ~ . t ~1'/ 13,200 SF 0 I ~ ~ ' BLOCK 1 ~ ~ .30 Ae I I I vi 280' o j z49' I ~ I PHASE 1 ~ w a + 6 I ' 242' PHASE 2 42,154 SF ~ 1•- ^ 6 0.97 At I S y W s2.eo7 5F PHASE 1 N ;p > t U th o.ae At PHASE 2 299• 1 ~m ~ M I '~ s V! I O 6 249' a \ ~ O i + 7 Z 73.675 ST ~ I 1.69 At ~ 4 ~ 7 1.09 A I_ 0'20' tFYr'axutr wTnct7¢r g 7 3 3' I 1 1l ~R4Iro St,a63 SF 1 t8 Ac Y~ i ~ DSCAPE LOT us[ytN1 . 1 12,070 SF ' I o.ze At \ 279' 287 ~ 8 X53 _...- ___ \1i1F.11.1 10 I 44, 925 SF 1.OJAt I w~j ` f E. KALISPELL S7, ~~~ ~ - - ---- 1 264' I ~N 202' I I ; ~ I I 9 ' ' az.oo4 sv a 1'° _. I 0.97 Ae I ~° 1 ' ~ 2 r 3 I IA _, ~ St,897 S< 1.19 AC 50,851 SF SO,OS2 SF ~ I 1.17 At _ 1.15 Ae I I , BLOCK 4 I ~ 10 I I I ~ 12,743 SF 0.98 Ac -+I 12' Unlln EASEMENT _. i 1 176' ---- ' - ----- - - --- - 176' _ _ 176' - - --- ____ - _ - _----- __ 280' _ ._ _i 1 438.26 A _ O' I 20 UnIITr, 1RRICA710N k ~ ~ 888.27 / - ~ 1 DRAINAGE EASEMENT S 89'39'40" W 1326.53' ` nuns ~r1rn '-- 1 j 16 Meridian City Council March 18, 1997 Page 20 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: I guess Mr. Mayor before we leave this item to get a sense of when that can be done because our next item hinges on that. And when we may or may not reschedule that. Crookston: That is very true, what had been done in the past on this particular application was that the findings of fact were not adopted or anything. It was only moved to allow the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and then the platting would be subsequently. If that is the request of .the applicant he should make that request, if he does not make the request that is the decision of the council as to whether that shall be done or not. Corrie: So you will have time to do them by the April 1~` meeting? Crookston: I believe so yes, but we still have item 4 on the agenda for tonight. Corrie: That is correct, does that answer your question Mr. Rountree? Rountree: The April 1~ does. ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 4, 1997: Corrie: I wil! open the is public hearing and ask the developer if we would like to make the request to continue that to the April 1 ~ meeting. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: Yes, on behalf of the developer of Properties West we would like to request that the City continue this preliminary plat contingent upon the new findings and the action on the annexation. Corrie: Thank you Gary, since this is a public hearing continuation, is there anybody from the public that would like to enter any testimony at this time? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove, Meridian; was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: We would like to point out so far we don't really know what this place looks like So none of the affected parties have any comment to make on it. It still, the lots at the back that may change, it is all, businesses are central that may change. The easement may be introduced, the landscaping may be introduced but we would like to have a comment that the public doesn't know what we are seeing yet. Meridian City Council March 18, 1997 Page 21 Corrie: Thank you, anyone else from the public at this time? Council, any questions or comments? At the request of the developers, I would like to continue the public hearing with Council permission. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we continue the public hearing until April 1~ for the preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision. Rountree: Second Corrie: The motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing until April 1 ~ on the preliminary plat for the subdivision, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BY MERIDIAN LDS CHURCH: Corrie: 1 will now open the public hearing and invite a member of the Meridian LDS Church or representative to step forward. Steve Simmons, 1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simmons: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we came with this application for direction in November to one of your previous meetings just to get some sort of direction as to how we should approach this project which seemed a little bit of a nowhere zone and no one could give us a lot of direction on how we should proceed. Consequently with the direction we have received we have submitted for the variance of basically a 5 foot infringement into the required 30 foot setback on the west side of the property fronting Albertson's directly to the west and Ten Mile. We haven't received any negative comments from staff or any of the other utilities in their review and basically are just waiting #or a decision. Corrie: Council, comments or questions of Mr. Simmons? Rountree: The only question I have is.;~l have yet to figure out this drawing. Although I understand what you are doing. Simmons: Mayor Corrie and Councilman Rountree what we are trying to show is the setback, our violation is only a small portion of the building because of the additional right of granted to ACRD back when the building was originally built in I believe 89-90 in that time frame. So we are just showing the northwest corner is where the violation is r~ u MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 18 1997 APPLICANT: PROPERTIES WEST INC. ITEM NUMBER; 3 8 4 REQUEST• PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 4 1997: ANNEXATION20NING TO I-L AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDMSION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS ~ ~~~~ y31 `~ i ~~ i~ ~~~~~{ d c ;mss ~P Fib ~',~ ~~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. y Meridian City Council ~ • March 4, 1997 Page 36 Morrow. I think that my preference would be to continue the public hearing so that we can have the input back from our staff from the City Attorney, the development team's response and certainly for those within the neighborhood for any issues that they may bring up that would be appropriate to the things that we have talked about and we are laboring with tonight. So my preference would be to continue the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would agree, I think we need to continue on with this so we can get better input from the staff and the legality from the City Attorney. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, do we need to vote on it or do we just continue it? Crookston I think it would be appropriate to have a motion on it and vote on the continuance. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on the proposed annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties West Inc. Bentley: Second Rountree: To March 18tH Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing 'on the request for annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties West Inc. to March 18"' meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, ,all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee indicated in the first portion of his presentation that he was treating the item 12 as being part of item 11. I think that the Council needs to probably open the public hearing and see if that is what is desired to be done and see if there are any comments from the public. And to see if either group wants to incorporate what they stated in the annexation for their testimony in the preliminary plat public hearing. ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing, Gary. Gary Lee, JUB, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Leer As stated earlier in the annexation public hearing I think we addressed the items with the plat. Talked about the subdivision in quite a lot of detail. I will confirm to the Meridian City Council ~ • March 4, 1997 Page 37 Council that we will make every effort to get some soils information on that limiting layer and also any potential ground water impacts. We did have a soils engineering firm evaluate that soil initially and hopefully with the information they have they can give us a recommendation. So if there are any other questions about the plat 1 can answer I will be glad to at this point. Crookston: I just have one, do you desire to incorporate your testimony that you gave on the annexation and zoning into this public hearing on the preliminary plat? Lee: Yes I do. I would like to make one other statement before I leave. You discussed the development agreement and how it addresses Conditional. use permit. The section that talked about requiring conditional use permit for specific uses are two items in the current zoning ordinance that is an allowed use in I-L zone. So what we have done is included those two that felt were probably more objectionable to be, to require a CUP. But the intent on the rest of the development is to comply with City zoning ordinance, if a conditional use is now required it is still required under the development. And if the draft didn't come across quite that clearly it was certainly the intent. Corrie: This is a public hearing, anybody else like to speak on the request for preliminary plat? Crookston: Just as a question to those that testified on the annexation and zoning is there anyone that does not desire to have their testimony incorporated from the annexation and zoning public hearing into the preliminary plat public hearing. I see no one stating that they do not want that done, is that correct? Thank you. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, 1 would make a motion that we continue the public hearing for the request for preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision by Properties West Inc. to 3-18- 97. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat until March 18`h meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: MARTY GOLDSMITH: SUBDIVISION: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS Corrie: Mr. Attorney? x`208 323 c U~,8~ J-U-B ENG. BOISE ~C~~~ MAR 1 4 X997 CITY OF MERIDI~-N ~ 001/003 J•U•BI ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 FAX: 208/323-9336 208/376-7330 ']C"~]LIEcC~I~~I[~1[lU[~][~CA\'7C'][~0~~ ~C']E~.A\~~l~~lt]['7[,~C',A\]L TO: Will Berg, Mayor Robert Corrie & Cit~S~ Council FAX Number: 887-4813 COMPANX: City of Meridian FROM: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: Medimont Subdivision -Ground Water Concerns Date: March 14, 1997 Pages (including this page): Time: 7:55 AM MESSAGE: Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter dated March 13, 1997 from Dan Gado, PE, from STI2.ATA Geotechnical En~ineerina. The letter discusses the existin otable water supply that the property owners surrounding Medimont Subdivision are currently using. In addition, Mr. Gado has eonunented on the potenital impacts to this _ water table from possible contaminants from the proposed industrial development. We believe this letter should alleviate any concerns you or the neighbors may have about ground water contamination If you have any questions, please call. Thank You. cc: Jon Barnes Xf you do not receive all of the pages, please call 208/376-7330, or notify by FAX: 208/323-9336. MAR 14 '9? 08 00 208 323 9336 PAGE.01 03/14/97 07:58 MAR-13-1997 15 15 $208 323 9336 s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOTBCNN~OaL ENaINpERUrG B uaTERW.S TESTING 7eag lemhi Sl~set Boise, Idaho 83705 zoa srs-e2oo ~ Fax 206 3rs•SZD7 Mr. Gary Lee, P.E. 7-U-B Engineers, Inc. 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709 R>s: LETTER Ground Water Concerns Properties West, Inc, Medimont Subdivision Industrial Park Meridian, Idaho Dear Gary: ~l o P.01i02 Fj~ f,CO'°Y We understand the proposed industrial pazk development will contain buildings with gravel storage areas. During a recent public hearing, we understand that the residents located east of the project aicea were concerned about surface wntaminants entering the gravel storage yazd areas and possibly contaminating the potable ground water supply for their homes. We have reviewed the subsurface hydrogeology for the area via the observation of five test pit excavations and eight individual well logs for the subject area. We understand the potable water wells have been drilled and cased to depths that range from 70 w 130 feet below the ground surface_ It appears that there are upper and lower aquifers separated by impervious clay layers beneath the project area. Since the wells are cased throughout their depth, it appears that potable water is being drawn from the lower aquifer. First water is typically encountered between a depth of l7 to 3S feet below the ground surface. The ground water flow gradient for the area is co the northwest. The subsurface soils beneath the site consist of ar. upper relatively impervious layer of silt and clay soils in the upper 5 feet of the ground surface. Beneath the silt and clay is a pervious layer of sand and gravel in which the first ground water is encountered ac depths of 17 to 35 feet below the ground surface. Beneath the sand and gravel there are impervious sandy clay and clay layers that exist between a depth of approximately 30 and 70 feet below the ground surface. These impervious clay layers should provide some~protection to the lower aquifer from contaminanu which may enter near the ground surface. In addition, the upper impervious silt and clay soils located from 0 to 5 feet below the ground surface would also provide some protection from contaminants that may enter at the ground surface. Beneath the impervious clay layers, sand and gravel layers were encountered at 70 to 130 feet. These layers of pervious soil make up the lower aquifer. Based on ow review of the hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity of the project site, it is our opinion that any surface contaminants that may be spilled near the ground surface at the project site would not likely be transmitted to the lower potable water supply aquifer that is MAR 14 '9? 08 01 IDAHO WR$NINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA - UTAh NEYAOa J-TJ-B ENG. BOISE 208 323 9336 PAGE.02 March 13, I99~ File: 92-06 03/14/9? 07:59 $208 323 9336 _MRR-13-1997 15 16 • J-U-B ENG: B6ISE ~ 003/003 P.02i02 k'rOpeRltl3 WCSt, 1100. Fild: 92-06 Page 2 located at a depth of 70 to 130 feet below the ground surface due to the pxesence of impernneable (aquiclude) layexs of silt and clay soils that underlie the site. Additionally, the ground water gradient to the northwest would cause contaminants to flow away from the residences located east and south of the proposed development. We hope the above information provides you the necessary background to address the concerns raised at the recent public heating with respect to contamination of potable ground water supply in the project area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on tfiis project. If you have any questions, please call. ~ , . , .' ~ Est ~ . q~ ~. ~ . ~ 65607 ~ DPG/sr o~yo 'ANC. P. Gado, P.E. s ~ ~ a ~ a OEOTECHlAC4l E~.cwEE~~M6 ~ Na'ua t~ :ES':nG TOTAL P. 02 MAR 14 '9? 08 01 208 323 9336 PAGE.03 • .~' J•U•B! ENGINEERS, Inc. rJ•U'B ~ ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS ~~ 250 S. 8eechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 FAX: 208/323-9336 208/376-7330 "]C'~lL1E~C~1~~1[1M[l[~fi~][~CA\'x'l[~~ ~C']f~.~R1~I~~'~1[~'~"x',A\]L TO: Will Berg, Mayor Robert Corrie & City Council FAX Number: 887-4813 ~ RECEIVED MAR 1 4 1997 COMPANX: Ci of Meridian GTY EN(;i(MNEER FROM: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: Medimont Subdivision -Ground Water Concerns Date: March 14, 1997 Time: 7:55 AM Pages (including this page): 3 MESSAGE: Gentlemen: Enclosed is a Ietter dated March 13, 1997 from Dan Gado, PE, from STRATA Geotechnical Engineering. The letter discusses the existing potable water supply that the property owners surrounding Medimont Subdivision are currently using. In addition, Mr. Gado has commented oa the potenital impacts to this water table from possible contaminants from the proposed industrial development. We believe this letter should alleviate any concerns ou or the neighbors may have about s~round water contaminarion If you have any questions, please call. Thank you. cc: Yon Barnes If you do not receive alt of the pages, please call 208/376-7330, or notify by FAX: 208/323-9336. MAR 14 '97 08 00 206 323 9336 PAGE.01 I'IRh2-13-1997 15:15 s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOTECNNIO~~ CNGINEEpwG B M~TERULS TESTING 7ee6 lemhi Skeet. Boise. Idaho 83709 zoa 3r6.82oo i Fax 206 376.6201 Mr. Gary Lee, P.E. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 250 South Beachwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709 • March 13, I99~ File: 92-06 P.01i02 ~~~F Cpp` R>r: LETTER . Ground Water Concerns Properties Wesi, Inc. Medimont Subdivision Industrial Park Meridian, Idaho Dear Gary: We understand the proposed industrial park development will contain buildings with gravel storage areas. During a recent public hearing, we understand that the residents located east of the project area were concerned about surface contaminants entering the gravel storage yard areas and possibly contaminating the potable ground water supply for their homes. We have reviewed the subsurface hydrogeology for the area via the observation of five test pit excavations and eight individual yell Iogs for the subject area. . We understand the potable water wells have been drilled and cased to depths that range from 70 m 130 feet below the ground surface_ It appears that there are upper and lower aquifers separated by impervious clay layers beneath the project area. Since the wells are cased throughout their depth, it appears that potable water is being drawn from the tower aquifer. First water is typically encountered between a depth of 17 to 35 feet below the ground surface. The ground water flow gradient for the area is co the northwest. The subsurface soils beneath the site consist of at: upper relatively impervious layer of silt and clay soils in the upper S feet of the ground surface. Beneath the silt and clay is a pervious layer of sand and ~cavel in which the first ground water is encountered ac depths of 17 to 35 feet below the ground surface. Beneath the sand and ;ravel there are impervious sandy clay and clay layers that exist between a depth of approximately 30 and 70 feet below the ground surface. These impervious clay layers should provide some~protecaon to the lower aquifer from contaminants which tnay enter near the ground surface. Tn addition, the upper impervious silt and clay soils located from 0 to 5 feet below the ground surface would also provide some protection from contaminants that may enter at the ground surface. Beneath the impervious clay layers, sand and gravel layers ,were encountered at 70 to 130 feet. These layers of pervious soil make up the Iower aquifer. Based on our review of the hydrogefllogic conditions in the vicinity of the project site, is is our opinion that any surface contaminants that may be spilled near the ground surface at the project site would not likaly be transmitted to the lower potable water supply aquifer that is IDAHO WASHINGTON • .ORE60J1 W1'OIrtING - MONT1lNA - UTxli NEY~DA MAR 14 '9? 08:01 208 323 9336 PAGE. 02 _ ~~1111C-1.>'1J7! 1J• lp P.02~02 • YTOpC[t1~7S WCSt, Inr _ ~ Filtl: 92-06 Page 2 located at a depth of 70 to 130 feet below the ground surface due to the presence of impermeable (aquiclude) layer of s~1t and clay soils that underlie the site. Additionally, the ground water gradieat to the northwest would cause contaminants to flow away from the residences located east and south of the proposed development. We hope the above information provides you the necessary bacI4;round to address the concerns raised at the recent public hearing with respect to contamination of potable ground water supply in the project area. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you Dave any questions, please call. , • . . ,~~~ ' ~~' s~cerely, . 4~ ~® OFD A_ INC_ 560 DPG/sr ~ -c pp ~v- ~ ~~ P. Gado, P.E. s ~ ~ a ~ a 6EOTEtMMGI EwMEEo•wa ~ Ma•a,: `g :ES':nG TOTAL P, 02 MAR 14 '97 08 01 20B 32~ q~Z~ pcr,~ ~~ RECEIV,~D MAR 1 81997 ~' OF~ERID~AN • RAST OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH P & Z FINDINGS OF F Findings of Fact are in Bold Type. Proposed Agreement in in Regular Type, and indented. Remarks are in Lower Case. FINDINGS OF FACT M RIDIAN P NNIN6 AN ZONING FFRRIIARY ~ ~ ~ 997 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY THE DEVELOPER. FEBRUARY 20, 1997, STATING FINDINGS OF FACT HAD BEEN INCORPORATED IN FULL (Para 9, P 1). 1. CONTRACTORS YARDS MUST BE 300 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENCE CONTRACTORS YARDS MAXIMUM OF 40 FEET FROM RESIDENCES, LOTS 6 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 1 ONLY. (Exhibit C, 1 (3)). 2. CONDITIONAL USE EVERY BUILDING tS "PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BE CAUSE OF ADYE EFFECTS ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROP RTIES NO CONDITIONAL USE, EXCEPT ON LOTS 6 THROUGH 9 -AND ONLY IF THESE INCLUDE CONTRACTORS YARDS OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES OR REPAIR. (Subsection 2 (b) ). 3. USES SHALL BE APPROVED THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMPATABI T WITH THE AREA NO REVIEW, BUILDING PERMITS ONLY, AND ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE "INTEREST OF HEALTH, WELFARE, AND/OR SAFETY OF THE /Nf~9B/TANTScaFTHEC/TY' (Subsection 9). (Emphasis added). 4 REQUIRE STRING NT DEYEI OPMENT GUID t INES NO GUIDELINES, EXCEPT LOTS 6 THROUGH 10, BLOCK 3 -BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTED TO 40 FEET ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL. (Exhibit C, 8 (d)). NOTE: 40 feet is the maximum allowable height for I-L by City Ordinance 5. SHOULD NOT CREATE NOISE Fx~Ft=DtN~ THAT OF THE SURROUNDING NFIGHBORHOOD UNRESTRICTED, EXCEPT LOTS 6 THROUGH 9, BLOCK 3, ADJOINING RESIDENCES - ON THESE LOTS YARD OPERATIONSARE LIMITED TO GAM TO 10 PM; NO RESTRICTION ON NON-YARD OPERATION. (Exhibit C, 12). 6. SHOULD NOT CREATE LIfiHT EXCEEDING THAT OF THE SURROUN IN6 NEIGHBORHOOD NO RESTRICTIONS. 7. SHOULD NOT CREAT onnRS F CEEDIN6 THAT OF THE SURROUNDIN NEIGHBORHOOD NO RESTRICTIONS. $ SHOULD NOT CREATE DUST EXCEEDING THAT OF THE SURROUNDING N IANRORNMn ANNUAL DUST ABATEMENT OF YARDS. (Exhibit C, 13). NOTE: Presumably this abatement Includes oil and herbicide over the potable water. 9. STORAGE OR PRODUCTION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IS PROHIBITED NEAR RESIDENTIAL NO RESTRICTIONS. • 70. ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING EAST AND WEST BOUNDARIES AS ILLUSTRATED ON PLAT (Exhibit B, 4 (e)). NOT REFERENCED IN THE LANDSCAPING SECTION, (Exhibit C, 1 1). NOTE: The landscaping illustrated is a chainlink fence and unspecified trees or spacing on the east. The Directly Affective Parties have testified for 35 foot landscaping and masonry sound fence. As illustrated, there is no landscaping of any type on the west, and only 10 foot setback. 1 1. THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE DESIGNED TO BLEND INTO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ALL STORAGE YARDS WILL BEAT THE REAR OF THE LOTS, INCLUDINGADJOININGRESIDENTIAL. (Exhibit C, 4 (a)). RESTRICTED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT OF 40 FEET NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, (Exhibit C, 8 (d)). NONCOf1PLiANCE SANCTION WILL BE THE WITHDRAWL OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT. NEITHER DOCUMENT REGARDS THE POTABLE WATER TABLE. Submitted: Jim Witherell March 18, 1997 r~ lu MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 4,1997 APPLICANT: PROPERTIES WEST INC. ITEM NUMBER; 12 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDMSION AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: P A Z MINUTES FROM 1-14-97 CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY: FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~- ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: Uv~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~~ ~~ ~~ ~' r~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zo~ng Commission February 11, 1997 Page 13 ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, MacCoy -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law including that the applicants or their successors and interests, assigns, heirs and executors or personal representatives enter into a development agreement and that the property only be developed under the conditional use process. And that if the applicant's are not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law and are not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Borup: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we pass the decision and recommendation onto the City as read by Commissioner Oslund, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.; TABLED JANUARY 14, 1997: Johnson: This is a preliminary plat. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the preliminary plat submitted by the applicant Properties West Inc. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the preliminary plat, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact as prepared? If there is none will entertain a motion for approval. ' Meridian Planning & Zo~Tng January 14, 1997 Page 21 We can't even now get on Franklin Road off Locust Grove at 8:00 in the morning, we can't get across Franklin Road. So there has to be other changes. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else before I close the public hearing? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a public hearing for annexation and zoning, it would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Chairman, could I have John Fitzgerald step into this shoe? If you don't mind I will depart. Johnson: Okay, see you Wayne, hope you feel better. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add something on a lighter note. I was interested in the school district's comments that this subdivision will add 9 school children and cause overcrowding of the schools. I didn't know if the developer addressed that. ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A .PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION, 18 LOTS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN. ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Johnson: We will automatically incorporate all of your testimony unless you have an objection to that. I will now open the public hearing. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would like to reiterate what I said before. If there are any further questions about the preliminary plat I would be glad to answer them at this point or the conceptual engineering plan. I think we have adequately addressed all of the City stafias concerns. Oslund: I have a question that may not be directly related, but maybe left over from before, Mr. Chairman. The only one was, in the CC&R's is there anything in there about the hours of operation? Meridian Planning & Zo~ng January 14, 1997 Page 22 Lee: Not at this point, but there could be. !just wanted to mention too that we received ACHD's final comments today, I don't know if the City staff has them yet or not. But there were some site specific requirements that they made and we have addressed on this revised submittal and incorporated with what Gary and Shari had mentioned. Basically what they were looking at is providing aturn-lane into the project off Franklin Road a decel lane and acceleration lane going out with a painted median. There is some stacking from the east going into the project and then there is a tum lane from the west which we have incorporated. They have made some suggestions about the right. of way widths and again in these commercial collector roads they are wanting 58 feet now instead of 60 like they always had before. There was an issue about the access point to the Tamura property that was recently approved. We have been talking with Doug Tamura and he has verbally told us that he can rework his plan somewhat from one of his driveways it wasn't a street access but it was a driveway. So we can meet that minimum setback requirement that ACRD has along Franklin so that will be provided. That is just a little update on some of their comments. Johnson: Is there any reference in the ACRD study comments draft to a traffic study? Lee: No, there is no requirement, they did a brief analysis themselves based on the use and concluded that there wouldn't be one required. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Mr. Oslund Oslund: Mr. Chairman, in the staff commerrts there was one comment related to, maybe it was in your response. The issue being ACRD is requiring that you submit money in a trust fund for your frontage improvements. I think the City, one of the City comments was that you do sidewalk, has that issue been resolved? Lee: I don't know if it has been resolved. It is not too uncommon to go ahead and put the sidewalk in at this point as long as we can set it back far enough from the plan widening of Franklin Road so it can be reused at a future date. The only comment I made about that was we would be glad to put the sidewalk in rather than pay a road trust fee to the Highway District as long as we don't have to do both. We would rather have the sidewalk too. It makes it a much nicer finished look. Borup: That was the same question I had, the road trust fee is strictly for a sidewalk? Lee: Yes, all of the improvements on Franklin Road will be done by impact fees generally. Borup: Well that seems reasonable not to pay for it twice. Johnson: Thank you Gary. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? Did you have a comment Mr. Fitzgerald? Meridian Planning & Zo~g January 14, 1997 Page 23 Fitzgerald: No comment Johnson: I will close the public hearing at this time. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item pending the results of the findings of fact. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion is made with a second preliminary plat until the findings of fact formulated, all those in favor? Opposed? that we table the public hearing on the and conclusions of law are approved or MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE TAEKWONDO SCHOOL AT 706 EAST FIRST STREET BY JOHN AND BECKY SCHIEBOUT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative of the applicant to address the Commission and tell us what you are planning on doing. Becky Schiebout, 70 Southwest 7th, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schiebout: I don't know where you guys got the word private, we are sole proprietors, I don't know why it says private. Johnson: Well that makes it private, it is not public. Schiebout: We teach self defense and it would be the old Idaho Tent and Canvas building. We are going to open March 1~ hopefully if everything goes okay and it will just be a karate school. Johnson: I am sure that the commissioners have some questions. If not I will start while you guys think about it. Have you set your operation hours yet, what would you think your prescribed hours of operation would be? Schiebout: Nine a.m. to nine p.m. Johnson: I am assuming what you would do is different age groups, is that true? MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: January 14.1997 APPLICANT: PROPERTIES WEST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION AGENCY CITY CLERK: COMMENTS CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~' CITY ATTORNEY: I 4 CITY POLICE DEPT: "REVIEWED" ~ ~ U CITY FIRE DEPT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ `~ ~ f CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~l ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORANDUM: To: Planning & Zoting Commission/Mayor and Council From: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer~~~ Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator ~--~~ Re: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION January 9, 1997 (Annexation/Zoning with Preliminary Plat - By Properties West, Inc.) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: 1. The legal description for annexation included in the application appears to conform to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158, and the requirements of the Idaho State Tax Commission. 2. Any existing irrigation/drdinage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Plans will ~ to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 3. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 4. Determine the seasonal high groiuldwater ele~ion, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the street development plans. 5. Submit a master street drainage plan approval from the affected in igation/drainage district 6. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with Meridian's Water Works Superintendent. HUB O • F TREASURE VALLEY tv N .I [L!EI~!RFpC A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOL SMA EE C ~EN N T C N R. BENTL E 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHU $3(142 P A Z COMMISSION (208) 888-4433 • FA% (Z68) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON Chairman Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221! , KEITH BORUP Motor Vehicle/Drivets License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. OORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor ~asoKr.rp • • P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1997 Page 2 7. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries. 8. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system shall be approved and activated, and road base to be approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to any building permits being issued. 9. Respond, in writing, to each of the comments contained in this memorandum, and submit with copies of the revised Preliminary Plat Map to the City Clerk's Office prior to the scheduled hearing date. 1. Sanitary sewer service for this development shall be off of an exteffiion of the existing sanitary sewer main shown on the plat at the NW corner in E. Fiar~klin Road. The treatment capacity of the Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed developmeng. The subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works Departrnent. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of roadway centerlines. 2. Water service for this development shall be off of an extension of the existing 12-inch diameter main shown on the plat at the NW corner in E. Franklin Road. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. The subdivision designer is to coordinate sizing and routing with the Meridian Public Works Department. Water lines shall be located on the north and east sides of roadway centerlines. 3. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas shall be submitted for approval. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior tiu signature on the final plat. 4. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 5. Install non-combustible, six-foot-high, permanent perimeter fencing prior to obtaining building permits unless this requirement is specifically waived in writing by the City. ~~~.~ ~ • P&Z Cotnmission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1997 Page 3 6. Please revise the Preliminary Plat map to include land use and existing zoning of the land adjacent to the proposed development. 7. The pressurized irrigation system within this development needs to be designed along the rear of the lots to avoid conflicts with utilities. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system to the pressurized irrigation system being proposed will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered. 8. 250-watt, high-pressure sodium street lights will be required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works Department after Idaho Power Company completes their design for the service of this development. All street lights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. 9. Add a street name to the stub street going to the west boundary, and provide a 50 foot radius temporary turnaround at the west end. This may require some building restriction status for Lot 1, Block 4, and/or Lot 8, Block 1, depending m an acceptable dirnaround design. John Priester, the Ada County Surveyor, has rece~ly indicated that it is not desirable to show these temporary turnarounds on the plats, because it is then a dedicated public right-of--way that must later be vacated. Mr. Priested stated that the best solution to this problem is to record an instrument, either prior to or after plat recordation, providing an easement for this purpose. The document world have a provision that the easement would automatically be rescinded once the streets are able to go through. 10. Applicant has indicated in his preliminary plat Note No. 9 that "improvements along E. Franklin Road (future) will be Road Trusted and constructed by ACRD at a later date" . Applicant is to install afive-foot wide detached sidewalk along the Franklin Road fiontage at this time ahead of the ACRD reconstruction. 11. Twenty-foot-wide planting strips are required to be placed adjacent to all residential properties in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.G. A planting strip needs to be added on the westerly boundary of the property. The planting strip shall not be a part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easements 12. Any contractor's yards proposed must be looted a minimum distance of three humored feet (300') from any residence exc~t for an owner's residence, have a screening fence around areas utilized for storage of equipment, and be limited to storage, maintenance and processing incidental to contracting work. cu~ce+oNr.rr • • P&Z Commission/Mayor & Council January 9, 1997 Page 4 13. Lighting shall be designed so as not to cause glare or impact adjacent residential properties, as determined by the City of Meridian. 14. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that all uses within this Mixed/Planned Use Development Area shall be developed as a planned unit development under the conditional use process. This will be particularly important if the proposed zoning is approved because of the possibility of adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties. The potential for incompatible uses is great if the I-L zoning is approved without stringent development guidelines being imposed. c:Umnn~ar~rr.rr HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CI~'Y ~F l~7ERIDIA N RONALD R. TOLSMA EE ~ L ~ G ENN R. BENTLEY 33 EAST IDAHO :MERIDIAN, IDAi~O 83642 P & Z COMMISSION (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman Public ~VorksBuilding Deoartrnent (208) 887-221 I KEITH BORUP Motor Vehicle/Grivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: January 7, 1997 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/16/96 HEARING DATE: 1/14/97 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat for Medimont Subdivision (to be marketed as Stonebridge) -18 Buildable Lots on 26.11 Acne in a Proposed I-L Zone BY: Properties West. Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Locust Grove. South of Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P2 GREG OSLUND, P2 KEITH BORUP, P2 BOB CORRIE, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C WALT MORROW, C1C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPAR-IAENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST (PRELIM. 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS PR IM. & FI PLAT) BUREAU OF REC I (PRELI . F_ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES J i'1 _ A YOUR CONCISE Eft u~~ ~ s igs~ CITY Q~ ~ERiD,~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt. SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R. TOLSMA EE ~ GLENN R. BENl1EY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman KEITH BORUP Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: III Berg, City Cterk by: January 7, 1997 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12/16!96 HEARING DATE: 1/14/97 REQUEST: __ Preliminary Plat for Medimont Subdivision (to be marketed as Stonebridae) -18 Buildable Lots on 26.11 Acres in a Proaosed I-L Zone BY: Proaerties West. Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: West of Locust Grove. South of Franklin Road JIM JOHNSON, P2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MERIDIAN POST OFFICE (PRELIM. & FINAL P.~AT~,; « -: ~ ~~.F JIM SHEARER, P2 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GREG OSLUND, P2 ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION :.. ; J ~ KEITH BORUP, P2 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH ` BOB CORRIE, MAYOR NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ~- { , RONALD TOLSMA, C/C SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT ' CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM. S FINAL PLAT) WALT MORROW, C/C U.S. WEST (PRELIM. ~ FINAL PLAT) GLENN BENTLEY, C/C INTERMOUNTAIN GAS (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) WATER DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (P` zELIM. & FINAL PLAT) SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY FILES / ^ / ~ C FIRE DEPARTMENT _ _ fO OTHER:_ cy YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: POLICE DEPARTMENT L L pr„i t..~, ~ L ~.~'- t ~, J ; L yip ,~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER n/~ C L e O J3 ~ ' T .Q. „S NA S AwA itc'.C•ed ar [9- CITY PLANNER , L L o /V k.~ .a.~ d-- rpm s A w V •t r ~ O N Q, o~_ ~Gf1~ SHERRY R. HUBER, President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Vice President JAMES E. BRUCE, Secretary TO: FROM SUBJECT: Properties West Inc 1401 Shoreline Dr Boise ID 83702 Karen Gallagher, Coordinator Development Services Division Preliminary Plat-Medimont Subdivision/MPP-16-96 aka Stonebridge Business Park Franklin Rd and Locust Grove Rd On January 8, 1997, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of--way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, tic ,?ether with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute and Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 January 10, 1997 ~~: SAN 13 ~f,., ~ ''~`~ ~ ~,`,: is ,"#~r"',. i r January 10, 1997 Page 2 3. Furnish copy of Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority toeether with payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs, as required. 4. If Public Rights-of--Way Trust Find deposit is required, make deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements, and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings for District acceptance, certifications, and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner's and Land Surveyor's certification. 7. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. An extension of one year will be considered by the Commission if requested within 15-days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at 345-7680, should you have any questions. KG cc: Dev Svcs/MRZ-1-95/MA-1-95/MCU-18-96/MA-3-96 Chron John Edney Chuck Rinaldi City of Meridian JUB/G Lee • ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Services Division Development Application Report Preliminary Plat - Medimont Subdivision Franklin Road w/o Locust Grove Road Medimont Subdivision is an 18-lot industrial subdivision on 26.11-acres. The applicant is also requesting a rezone from RT to IL. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, approximately 480-feet west of Locust Grove Road. This development is estimated to generate 2,800 additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Roads impacted by this development: Franklin Road ACHD Commission Date -January 8, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. I I Rail Road J °' S I E Franklin a. ~ :t a~ 0 0 N a N l O E S/ • 1 rqN PAID( I H M0. UPMON a = ~ a t at ~ • emc • ~i • i • • s s w ~ iwsaa a a • : a ~,,,., . r T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i j `~ ~~ ! I ~ ~ ( \ , ,; `, ~' ~ ~i ;; ~ '~ ~,;, otn a vas 'Inmtw MtffR~M T~ lrt "1 t 7 1 M 'aft 't/t M t/t M ~~ IM aft-tat-ws 7e. y it1~Iw7iYat M+ ~ Yi wr-Nt.~ sw~ 7tt ~. 1j.r® ~IMt tN .7Wr~ nNMM /OO1rYlal~. ~ ~ ~rnar..r.~ sa w w~ /` "~i'~'i ~ LC'~."1 g'o' 3d~. So~~+. .o arirs r ~ "~ w ~ r 'aN ~YYi7NICN7 ~~ ~ t0117r~ N 01 1101MICrM iMalttO~t ~~~ t d ,~i ,~ j•; ; ~~i 1~~ j i ~ ~i i ~~ i~ a a f i ; e ~i~ _~ iii ~:~~•~ ~;} j ~ ~ ;; i~~ '~~ #_ W 1 ~ ~t' j~~ i ;~~, sal? ~{ ~' 1~ 1~j~J ~!; t (I Z' . r • 4 ~~ • L .f~7Rt 7 jwtt-00 ^ ~ '- arw aaole uroc+ s ~ ., ' ~ ~_1 ` ~ r ai T' . . ---- -- T- --- -- --- - -- 1~ ~~ ~ • ~. ~~ 1 ~i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ i I rI 1 3 - ' w -w i ~ ~ ~_ a w w w 1 i 1 ~ ~ W 1 ~![ tl ~_ I s •1 1 1 I w~ ~ .~ ~ _~~ ~ \ ~ 1 ~ .-.- ~ 9 ~ ~ '- .~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~1! ~ J 1 f ~ i I ~ I I ~# ~ ~~ _.- _- -- - _-. I - - ~ 1 b 4 r't~l ~ :rte ^ ~ ~i r ~ sib J ins t• i ~~~~~ .~ ~i~~~ a~ • Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Properties West, Inc. Applicant -Same RT -Existing zoning IL -Requested zoning 26.11 -Acres 18 -Proposed building lots 2,100 -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 282 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada County -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Franklin Road Principal arterial with bike route designation Traffic count 9,066 on 4-23-96 e/o of E 1st 850-feet of frontage 48-feet existing right-of--way (25-feet south of centerline) 90-feet required right-of--way (45-feet from centerline) Franklin Road is improved with 2-lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. This section of Franklin Road is listed as unfunded in the District's Five Year Work Program. B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with file numbers) for details. C. District policy requires the applicant to provide a $7,225.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of- Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel (approximately 850-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. D. District policy requires that all internal streets within this subdivision be constructed to a 41- foot street section with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks within a 58-foot right-of--way. E. District policy requires that direct lot access to S. Medimont Way be restricted to 150-feet south of the new right-of--way of Franklin Road. MEDIMONT.COM Page 2 • F. The applicant is proposing to stub S. Medimont Street at the south property line. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should provide a paved temporary turnaround at the south end of the stub with a temporary easement. Coordinate the turnaround with District staff. G. The applicant is proposing to stub E. Kalispell Street at the west property line. District staff supports the location of the stub street. The applicant should provide a paved temporary turnaround at the west end of the stub with a temporary easement. Coordinate the turnaround with District staff. H. The applicant is proposing a turnaround at the west end of E. Piper Court. District policy requires a minimum 45-foot radius for a standard turnaround. The applicant is proposing a hammerhead type turnaround instead of a standard turnaround. The District will consider alternatives to the standard turnaround on a case-by-case basis. This will be based on available space, drainage, maintenance considerations and the written approval of the agency providing emergency fire service for the area where the development is located. Submit plans to the District for review and approval. The proposed main project entrance off Franklin Road should be designed with two 21-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide sidewalk separated by a center median and located approximately 280-feet west of the east property line. The median should be constructed to a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum 100-square foot area. The applicant will be required to dedicate 54-feet of right-of--way plus the additional width of the median. J. There is a proposed development across Franklin Road north of this site that has been previously approved through MCU-18-96 which has an approved driveway on Franklin Road that is in conflict with this site's main project entrance. District policy requires a minimum of 150-foot offset for driveways on Franklin Road. The subject site is proposing the main project entrance in conflict with the District's offset requirements from an approved driveway for MCU-18-96. District staff has spoken with the applicant (Doug Tamura at 343-2931) for MCU-18-96 and he has agreed to relocate his driveway currently at the west property line of MCU-18-96, a minimum of 150-feet from the subject site's main entrance. This applicant should provide to the District a letter from the representative of MCU-18-96, stating that they have agreed to relocate their driveway a minimum of 150-feet east of this project entrance. OR The applicant should relocate or align their main project to be a minimum of 150-feet from MCU-18-96's westerly driveway. K. Due to the expected traffic volumes from this site the applicant should construct an eastbound right-turn deceleration lane on Franklin Road for the main project entrance. Widen Franklin Road with 0 to 9-feet of additional pavement from a point 200-feet west of the main site MEDIMONT.COM Page 3 • entrance to the west side of the main site entrance (Medimont Way). Submit the design to District staff for review and approval. The applicant should also construct a westbound left-turn lane on Franklin Road for the main project entrance (Medimont Way). Submit the design to District staff for review and approval. The added turn lane should have the following design elements: • A design lane width of 14-feet with a minimum 100-foot of storage east of the project entrance. • A painted taper island extending east from the east end of the storage lane for 200-feet on Franklin Road. • A 14-foot wide shadow taper on the west side of the project entrance, tapering from 14-feet at the main site entrance to a point 200-feet to the west. • See Ada County Highway District's Development Policy Manual, figure 72-F8 L. Street name and stop signs are required for Medimont Way, E. Kalispell Street, and E. Piper Court. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115. Verification of t_he correct. approved name of the road is required. M. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. N. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Site Specific Requirements: 1. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting the parcel (20 additional feet) by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. If the owner wishes to be paid for the additional right-of- way, the owner must submit a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACRD Ordinance #188. 2. Provide a $7,225.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund for the cost of constructing a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel (approximately 850-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 3. Stub S. Medimont Street to the south property line and provide a paved temporary turnaround at the south end of the stub with a temporary easement. Coordinate the turnaround with District Staff. MEDIMONT.COM Page 4 • 4. Stub E. Kalispell Street to the west property line and provide a paved temporary turnaround at the west end of the stub with a temporary easement. Coordinate the turnaround with District staff. 5. Construct a hammerhead turnazound at the west end of E. Piper Court. Provide written approval for the turnaround from the agency providing emergency fire service for the azea where the development is located. Submit plans to the District for review and approval. 6. Construct the main project entrance off Franklin Road with two 21-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide sidewalk separated by a center median and located approximately 280-feet west of the east property line. Construct the median a minimum of 4- feet wide to total a minimum 100-square foot area and dedicate 54-feet of right-of--way plus the additional width of the median. 7. Provide to the District a letter from the representative of MCU-18-96, stating that they have agreed to relocate their driveway a minimum of 150-feet east of this project entrance. OR Relocate the main project to align or offset a minimum of 150-feet from MCU-18-96's westerly driveway. 8. Construct an eastbound right-turn deceleration lane on Franklin Road for the main project entrance. Widen Franklin Road with 0 to 9-feet of additional pavement from a point 200-feet west of the main site entrance to the west side of the main site entrance (Medimont Way). Submit the design to District staff for review and approval. Construct a westbound left-turn lane on Franklin Road for the main project entrance (Medimont Way). Submit the design to District staff for review and approval. The added turn lane should have the following design elements: • A design lane width of 14-feet with a minimum 100-foot of storage east of the project entrance. • A painted taper island extending east from the east end of the storage lane for 200-feet on Franklin Road. • A 14-foot wide shadow taper on the west side of the project entrance, tapering from 14-feet at the main site entrance to a point 200-feet to the west. • See Ada County Highway District's Development Policy Manual, figure 72-F8 9. Construct all internal streets within this subdivision to a 41-foot street section with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks within a 58-foot right-of--way. 10. No direct lot access to S. Medimont Way shall be permitted withing 150-feet south of the new right-of--way of Franklin Road. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. MEDIMONT.COM Page 5 11. Provide street name and stop signs for Medimont Way, E. Kalispell Street, and E. Piper Court. The signs may be ordered through the District at the cost of $115. Verification of the correct. annroved name of the road is required. 12. Restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 13. Other than the public road specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Franklin Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Development Services Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of yy~y such a requirement would result in a substantial hardshi on r inequity. The written rgquest shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor within two days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identi each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. MEDIMONT.COM Page 6 • 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 1. ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. MEDIMONT.COM Page 7 t CENTRAL C •• DISTRICT ~i~1'HEALTH DEPARTMENT DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARI~IENT Environmental Health Division Return to: ^ Boise ^ Eagle ^ Garden city Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz Rezone # Use # / Short Plat ,/L1E~D~'9r~i ,.5~//$b///~/y~ ~~;c=~'~ r_~ JAN 0 2 1997 ^ I. We have No Objections to this Proposal. ~~, ~~ ~EF?I®j1~,, ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and water availability. 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: ~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage .® central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ,~ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ~ central water ~]. 10. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ I I. Stormwater disposal systems shall be reviewed by relative to: ^ Waste Disposal ^ Injection Well rules. ^ Groundwater Protection ^ 12. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ 13. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 14. g ry / laLl Z3 / ~~ ,,,~ 15. '?~ 2 s97~it-tr~~t~t~ S~ ad~Gc 1~JGL.u~~ Date: S ~S" A-L-~ 'off Tv /S !r / Reviewed By: ` 1"dM - a - P Ta '7%je S'v s /r7~ cG • (DHD 10/91 rcb, rer. I/95 We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ rote store • !____ ENTRAL ~ • •• ISTRICT ~R'HEALTH ~.~~ . ~3~s.~>>.F . DEPARTMENT MAw OFFICE • ~~ N• ~ ~- ~• ~ ~27•a50o To pr+eoent and that disease and disablllty: to Promote healthy Wahl~% ~ ~ proteM and promote the health and Q~all alp STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMN~NDATIONS We recommend that the .first one half inch of stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: ,1) GUIDELINES FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF STORMWATER RUN OFF. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Southwest Idaho Regional Office, September 1995. 2) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 1992. 3) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT. serving valley, Ebnon. Bone. and Ada Counties O~ Ado / Iola Cash O~e~ MAC lea • MMldm ih D A X01• Coves ~• 520E 6~ 9aM K 61Yfrofrl~Mrd M~ P•t>. bo~~ 1/r Kd Q ~ 707 K Ampofq R e 1400 o D loe~ Madan Mgrn. D. 190 i M $rNl E M plti y~7191 Ida. Q 62701 6wio. FMar1t 727-7~ . . 67105 PR 7J1J75S 67E11 Ph 561.1101 Mou+~an Hero. O. X011 Pn. 567125 fang PlonnMa 727.7100 ]21 Meiidor-. D. • ...... - --- »,_u~n 87612 Pn 66b0525 ~ • ~~ ~~~ - ~ ~~~ CITY OF l~~IDIAN & ~~ . , ~ . 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 Wil! Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East /daho Meridian, lD 83642 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Preliminary P/at/Medimont Subdivision (Marketed as Stonebridge Business Parkl Dear Commissioners: The Nampa & Meridian lrrigation District's Hunter Lateral courses along the southwest corner of the project. The right-of--way of the Hunter Lateral is 40 ft; 20 feet from center facing downstream. See /daho Code 42-1208--R/GHTS-OF-WAY NOT SUBJECT TO ADVERSE POSSESS/ON. The deve%per must contact John P. Anderson or Bil! Henson at either 466-0663 or 345-2431 for approval before any encroachment or change ofright-of--way occurs. The Nampa & Meridian lrrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. A// /atera/s and waste ways must be protected. Al/ municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. /f any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian lrrigation District must review drainage plans. Contact Donna Moore at 343-1884 or 466- 7861 for further information. The deve%per must comply with !daho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made availab/e to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian lrrigation District. Sin rely, -~ John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent NAMPA & MER/D/AN /RR/GATION D/STRICT JPA: dln pc: Fi/e -Shop R/e -Office Water Superintendent APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 30 December 1996 • r ~~ CITY 4F ~EI~II~IAAI '~a~sysa 8r ~~i~udia.~ ~Ivugatia~s Dca.~uct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 3 January 1997 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Gary A. Lee, P.E. /L. S. Boise 343-1884 J-U-B Engineers, IriC. SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 250 South Beechwood Ave. , Suite 201 Boise 345-2431 Boise, ID 83709-0944 RE: Land Use Change Application for Medimont Subdivision Dear Mr. Lee: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on me at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, Donna N. Moore, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer dnm cc: File Water Superintendent Jon Barnes, Properties West, Inc. City of Meridian enc. APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 • N O V 1 5 1'~~~i S~ ~~ t of ~. ADA COUNTY EVALUATION SHEET Proposed Development Name~EDIMONT SU6 Fite No. CITY OF IME~ID~~~I~ Date Reviewed 11/07/96 Preliminary Stage_XXX Final Engineer/Developer J.U.B. Engr,/ ??????? ~~ The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Ordinance. She following existing road names shall appear on the plat as: " FRANILIN ROADA " LOCUST GROVE ROAD" The following r~oposed street names are approved and may be used for this development. "MEDIMONT" "SARGA SSO° "ICALIS PELL" "CALD ER° "PIP ER" "GULLVIEW is similar to "GOLfVIEW and therefiore cannot be used The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COM Ada County Engineer Ada Planning Association City of Meridian Fire District Meridian ATIVES OR DESIGNEES Date / ~ ~~/ John Priester ,~ Date 1 I - ~- - ~t.f~ Ann Hurley Representative Representative Date l / - ~ - 9~. Date ~` ~` O NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed III1 Sub Index Street Index 3N 1E 18 Section ~ ~~71~~ rn ~-~~ s~ i "GREENCREEK" is similar to "CRANE C REEK" and therefore cannot be used. "GARMIN" is similar to "CARMEN" and t herefore cannot be used. "TAMARINb" is similar to "TAMARINDO" and thetefor_e cannot be used. "CLERMONT" is similar to "CLAREMONT" and therefore cannot be used. ~SHTON" is reserved for another devel~ment and cannot be used. "HILLSBORO" is a duplication and cannot be used. "BANCROFT" is a duplication and cannot be used. "PICABO" is a duplication and cannot be used. "PAYETTE" is a duplication and cannot be used. ~ U•B ~ ~_ J-U-B I~INEERS, Inc. 250 S. Beechwood Avenue Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 Telephone: 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 To : Will Berg City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 ~TTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: 11/20/96 Project No. 11130-02 PROJECT NAME: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION PROJECT MANAGER: Gary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. SUBJECT: Preliminary Profiles and Ground Water Evaluation GENTLEMEN: We are sending you the following items: ®ATTACHED ^ UNDER SEPARATE COVER via ^ SHOP DRAWINGS ^ PRINTS ^ SAMPLES ^ SPECIFICATIONS ® COPY OF LETTER ^ CATALOG SHEETS ^ CHANGE ORDER ® Vellum COPIES DATE or No. DESCRIPTION 1 11-20-96 Profiles for Streets, Sewer, Storm Drain, Irrigation and Water Lines 1 10-25-96 Letter, report, groundwater data, soils profile data from STRATA THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ^ FOR APPROVAL ®AS REQUESTED ^ FOR SIGNATURE ^ FOR YOUR USE ®FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ^ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ^ FOR BIDS DUE , 1994 ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Will: Enclosed is the profile information that Shari Stiles had requested for the Preliminary Plat application for Medimont Subdivision. Please see that she gets this information. I have sent a copy to Gary Smith with this transmittal. Also, enclosed is a report from STRATA discussing the seasonal high ground water and the existing soils profiles for the property. (copy sent to Gary Smith) If you have any questions, please call. ~CEIV~D N O V 2 s 1996 CITY OF MERIDIAN IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE. .J- -B ENGINEERS, II1C. COPY FOR Gary Smith w/enclosure SIGNED: Gary .Lee, P.E./L.S. RECEIVED BY: DATE: PLEASE SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN COPY TO J-U-B. `, , i s ~ ~ a ~ a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7446 Lemhi Street, Boise, Itlaho 83709 208 376-8200 /Fax 208 376-8201 Mr. Gary Lee, P.E. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709 Ground Water Evaluation Properties West, Inc. Industrial Park Meridian, Idaho Dear Mr. Lee: • D October 25, 1996 Project No. 92-06 RE: LETTER J' U~ ngineers O C T 2 8 1996 B ISM, IDAHO ~~~~ N O V 2 1 1996 C~'f'Y OF MERIDIAiV On April 17, 1996, our personnel observed the excavation of and logged five (5) test pits for ground water monitoring. The location of the test pits was selected by J-U-B Engineers. Plate 1 shows the test pit locations. Ground water monitoring wells were installed in each of the test pits to a depth of 9 to 12 feet. The test pit logs are enclosed. The subsurface conditions generally consisted of silt and clay surficial soil overlying cemented silt and sandy gravel with cobbles. The depth to sandy gravel was about 5.0 to 6.0 in all test pits except Test Pit 4 where the depth to gravel was 10.0 feet. R-value tests were performed on the potential pavement subgrade soils. The R-value tests are enclosed. Ground water was not encountered in the test pits at the time of excavation. An existing irrigation ditch (Hunter Lateral) was observed to the southwest of the property. The ditch was about 4 feet deep with about 1 foot of water depth on April 17 and October 9, 1996. Gravel was observed in the bottom of the ditch. Monitoring of the ground water level in each observation well has been accomplished on a monthly to bi-monthly basis between May and October, 1996. The results of the monitoring are shown on the attached tables. Flood irrigation was accomplished over the majority of the property during the months of July through October. Therefore, ground water levels appear to be artificially high, associated with flood irrigation during these months, and not representative of the true high ground water level. The latest flood irrigation occurred during the first week of October 1996. It is our understanding that irrigation water was terminated from the Hunter lateral on October 15, 1996. Our well readings of October 15 and 21 show the water levels dropping to greater than 6.4 feet below the ground surface in the south part of the site near the Hunter lateral. The depth to high ground water appears to be greater than 9 feet in the north portion of the site as recorded in Test Pits 1 and 2. Since flood irrigation will no be practiced on the subject site in the future during site development, it is our opinion that the recent October 15 and 22 observation well readings are most representative of the high ground water level during this season. However, future ground IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA UTAH NEVADA . • Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 Page 2 water levels will probably be lower provided that flood irrigation practices are discontinued on the property. Based on the available ground water monitoring data, we recommend considering a high ground water level of 6.4 feet for the south area and 9.0 feet for the north area of the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, STRATA, C. - -'~ Ted Clawges ~~ Ep Laboratory Manager ~~ ~`pCBTERFO~~~ . `~~ ~s,~b ~~ n 6 5 6 0 Daniel P. Gado, P.E. a'~~l~ _`Z° Principal DPG/sr O r OF ~"~ O Enclosures .. 5 T r~ a T a GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING w a 0 Z 0 ~ m w J lL W Q !] } m W Y U w >- _ m U PROPERTIES WEST, INDUSTRIAL PARK N (Not to Scab) s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENa1NLE111N0'i MATEINAL9 TESTINp PfOIaOt NO. ~S-~ PLATe ~mn+ - 2p~ E. FRANKLIN ROAp ~ ~ • s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7446 Lemhi Street. Boise, Idaho 83709 208 376-8200 /Fax 208 376-8201 REPORT T0: J-U-B Engineers - Boise 250 South Beachwood Boise, Idaho 83709 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: DATE: 8/27/96 FILE NO: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-962127 Normal high groundwater is the highest elevation of a water table that is maintained or exceeded for a continuous period of six weeks per year. in order to obtain the six highest groundwater readings, a monitoring time frame of eight weeks to one year will be necessary depending on location and site conditions. Groundwater is measured from the original grade rather than a filled or finished grade for consistency of readings. Soil profiles of test holes and soil typing will also be submitted for review on the project. If the groundwater data does not reflect normal high water table for the area, additional monitoring may a regu re Location of test holes on site: 2 5 - 3 ~- WEER 1 Date Monitored 5/2/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth WEER 1 Date Monitored 5/2/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water De th WEER 2 Date Monitored 5/28/96 Test Hole 1 Test Ho1Q 2 Teat Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW WEER 2 Date Monitored 5/28/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hols 5 Test Hole *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth WEER 3 Date Monitored 6/24/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hol® 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth NW -r... ~~... ..may a•ao+ vi a•.ac. NW = No Water N Flood Irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. T. _he beat of my knowledge, the above information is accurate. IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA UTAH NEVADA • REPORT T0: J-U-B Engineers - Boise 250 South Beechwood Boise, Idaho 83709 • DATE: 6/26/96 FILE N0: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-960667 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: T is orm is nten a or use as a tool or measurement of group water monitor ng on y. Soi profiles of test holes and soils typing must also be submitted on this proposed project. The monitoring and accompanying graph must reflect the six weeks of highest groundwater. In order to obtain the six high weeks, eight weeks to one year of weekly monitoring will be necessary depending on the location and site conditions found. Groundwater is to be measured from original grade on all test holes and not from a filled or finished grade. WEEK 3 Date Monitored 6/24/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th NW *Water De th NW *Water De th WEEK 4 Date Monitored 7/16/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth 8.6' *Water Depth 3.5' *Water De thy' WEER 4 Date Monitored 7/16/96 Test Hole 4 Teat Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 5.7' *Water Depth l.l' *Water Depth WEEK 5 Date Monitored 7/22/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 6.7' *Water Depth~- WEER 5 Date Monitored 7/22/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th 0' *Water De th 4.4' *Water De th ~K 6 Date Monitored 8/5/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 4.fi *Water De thT$' WEEK 6 Date Monitored 8/5/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 3.6' *Water Depth 3.0' *Water Depth WEEK 7 Date Monitored 8/14/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 5. *Water Depth 5. ' WEEK 7 Date Monitored 8/14/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water De th 4.2' *Water De th 5.5' *Water De th WEEK 8 Date Monitored 9/17/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW *Water Depth 8. *Water De th~?S~ WEER 8 Date Monitored 9/17/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 5.4' *Water Depth 2.5' *Water Depth WEER 9 Date Monitored 10/8/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Teat Hole 3 *water Depth NW *Water Depth 8. *Water Depth' WEER 9 Date Monitored 10/8/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 7.4' *Water Depth 5.8' *Water Depth *Dept rom origins Gra e NW = No Water Note: Flood Irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. To the beat of my knowledge, the above information is accurate. I s- ~ a ~ a ' GEO7ECHN~C A~ ENGiNEEFiNG a MATEN UPS 7ESiiNG REPORT TO: J-U-B Engineers - Boise 250 South Beechwood Boise, Idaho 83709 DATE: 10/9/96 FILE NO: 92-06 INVOICE: 1-960667 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Properties West Industrial Park LOCATION: LEGAL ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: T is orm ie nten a or use as a too or measurement o group water mop for nq on y. Soi profiles of test holes and soils typing must also be submitted on this proposed project. The monitoring and accompanying graph must reflect the six weeks of highest groundwater. In order to obtain the six high weeks, eight weeks to one year of weekly monitoring will be necessary depending on the location and site conditions found. Groundwater is to be measured from original grade on all test holes and not from a filled or finished grade. WEER 10 Date Monitored 10/9/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Teat Hole 3 *Water Depth NW @ 8.9' *Water De tom' *Water Dee-tf' 6.1' WEER 10 Date Monitored 10/9/96 *Water Test De th Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole 7.65'-* titer Depth 6.3= *Water Depth WEER it Date Monitored 10/15/96 Test Hole 1 Teat Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW *Water Depth NW *Water Depth 7. ' WEER 11 Date Monitored 10/15/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 8.1' *Water Depth 6.~*Water Depth WEER 12 Date Monitored 10/21/96 Test Hole 1 Test Hole 2 Test Hole 3 *Water De th NW *Water De th NW *Water De th~.l' r'R 12 Date Monitored 10/21/96 Test Hole 4 Test Hole 5 Test Hole *Water Depth 9.0' *Water Depth 7.~Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Teat Hole *Water De th *Water Depth *Water Depth WEEK Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEEK Date Monitored Teat Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water De th *Water De th *Water De th WEER Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Teat Hole Teat Hole Teat Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEEK Date Monitored Test Hole Test Hole Test Hole *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth WEER Date Monitored Teat Hole Test Hole Test Hole *~en* rpm nri n nn ~!.-~ *Water Depth *Water Depth *Water Depth NW = No Water--~--.__ -_~,.~. Note: Flood Irrigation occurring in pasture from July through October 1996. To the beet of my knowledge, the above information is accurate. signature ~at• f o -~,3-yC s ~ ~ a ~ a GEO7ECr NiCAL ENG~NEE RING S MATE RiA~S 'E5*~NG w Q 0 Z 0 w ~ ~ m w J LL W Q 0 m 0 w Y U w m U EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG ~fl Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 2.0 ML/CL Silty LAY -brown, soft, wet, with vegetation. 2.0 - 4.5 MI./CL SILT/ LAY -hard, dry, moderately to highly cemented. 4.5 - 5.0 MI., SILT -medium dense, dry, slightly cemented. 5.0 - 10.5 GP Fine to medium sandy RG AVEL -medium dense, dry, some cementation. Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on April 17, 1996. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at IO.S feet below existing grou~ui level. Logged by: TC s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAI ENGINEERING E MATERIALS TESTING PLATS EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #2 W a 0 Z 0 w ~ m Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML/CL 1.0 - 2.5 ML 2.5 - 4.0 ML 4.0 - 5.0 SM 5.0 - 7.0 GP 7.0 - 10.25 GP w J <L Clayey ILT -brown, soft, wet, with vegetation. ILT -firm, slightly moist SILT -dry, moderately to highly cemented. Silty, medium dense AND -moderately cemented. Medium sandy GRAVEL -dense, slightly moist Fine to medium sandy RAVEL -dense, slightly moist, trace clay Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on April 17, 1996. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10. S feet below existing grou~ul level. Logged by: TC s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENOINEERINQ Jt MATERIAl9 TE$TINO PLAT EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG >#3 w Q 0 z 0 w ~ m w J LL W Q 0 m 0 w Y U w m U Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 2.25 ML-CL Clayey SILT -loose, moist to wet, with vegetation. 2.25 - 5.5 ML ILT -light tan, dry, moderately to highly cemented. 5.5 - 11.0 GP ~ Fine to medium sandy RAVEL -dense, s1il~htly moist, slightly cemented. Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on Apri! 17, 1996. No ground water encou~uered. Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grouiui level. Logged by: TC s ~ ~ a : a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENpINEERINO E MATERIALS TE$TINp PLATt EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG ~4 W Q 0 Z 0 w ~- o: m W J LL w a 0 r m 0 w Y U w ~ _ [~ U Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML-CL Clayey ~I .LT -soft, wet, with vegetation. 1.0 - 3.0 ML ~'~ -soft, wet, with calcium. 3.0 - 6.0 ML II -firm, slightly moist, lightly cemented. 6.0 - 9.0 ML Fine sandy I T -soft, very moist. 9.0 - 10.0 SM Silty, fine SAND with gravel -medium dense, moist. 10.0 - 13.0 GP Fine to medium sandy RAVEL -medium dense, moist, cobbles to 8 inches. Note: Ditch in southwest corner 4 to 5 feet below grade, 1 to 1.5 feet water running, gravel in bottom of ditch. Observation well installed to a depth of 12.0 feet. Excavntad on Apri117, 199. No ground water enrnuntered. Test pit terminated at l3.0 jeer below existing growul level. Logged by: T1C s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING i MATERIALS TESTING PLATT EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #{5 w Q 0 Z 0 w >- ac m Properties West Industrial Park Project No. 92-06 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 ML/CL Clayey ~n-T -soft, wet, with organics. 1.0 - 3.0 ML ~ -tan, trace moisture, lightly to moderately cemented. 3.0 - 6.0 SM ~ Silty AND -medium dense, slightly moist, slightly cemented. 6.0 - 10.0 GP-GW Fine to coarse sandy AV -dense, slightly moist. w J LL w a 0 m 0 w Y U w ~ 2 m U Note: Observation well installed to a depth of 9.0 feet. Excavated on Apri117. 199r~ No ground wcuer encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below uisting grou-u! level. Logged by: T1C s ~ ~ a ~ a ' OEOTECNNICAL ENOINEEpINO i MATERIALS TESTING PLATt ~ . • s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7446 Lemhi Street, Boise. Idaho 83709 208 376-8200 /Fax 208 376-8201 REPORT OF TBST3 Oli SOIL PROJECT Properties West Industrial Park LAB # 962974 INVOICE # IDENT NR FILE 92-06 SUBMITTED BY Strata SOURCE NR STATION 300'N of S prpty In on Pro osed Street SAMPLED BY TC TEST HOLE RZ DATE SAMPLED 7 DEPTH 18" DATE RELIEVED 4 17 96 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL Fine Sandy Clay MECHANICAL ANAL. 8 PASS SOIL CONSTANTS PIPE DATA LIQUID LIMIT pH RESISTIVITY OHM.CM. PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX REMARKS SPEC GRAVITY (+3 '~ SPEC GRAVITY (-NO 4) * 330 p s SAND EQUIVALENT "R" VALUE <5 Met od: Ida o T-8 EXP PRESSURE, PSI * One Point On y UNIFIED CLASS TRAFFIC INDEX 0 0 g o. o MOISTURE DENSITY CURVE $ AASHTO DESIGNATION T99 METHOD °D MAX. DRY WT. ~/CU.FT. OPT.MOIST $ 0 8 n c M ~ ~ •a N y a w c w a N a ~ ~ y y y w awG a °' z wz o a ~ t~ $ >~ ~ as w x ~ w II .. o ^ a a °L 0 O Q~ O O 0 DRY o DENSITY g LB3./CF °o a 0 °o en 0 g N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o O O O O O O O O O '" ~ (~ ~D N7 d' f'7 fV ~-1 MOISTURE IN PERCENT THIS REPORT COVERS ONLY MATERIAL AS REPRESENTED BY THIS SAMPLE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY COVER ALL SOIL FROM THIS LAYER OR OURCE. Reviewed By ~4 IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA U NEVADA ' ~ • s ~ ~ a ~ a ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 MATERIALS TESTING 7446 Lemhi Street, Boise, Idaho 83109 208 376-8200 / Fax 208 376-8201 REPORT OF TBST3 ON SOIL PROJECT Properties West Industrial Park LAB ~ 962974 INVOICE ~ IDENT NR FILE 92-06 SUBMITTED BY Strata SOURCE NR STATION_350'S of Franklin Rd on Proposed St SAMPLED BY TC TEST HOLE R~ DATE SAMPLED 7 DEPTH 18" DATE RELIEVED 4 17 96 DESCRIPTION OF SOIL Fine Sandy Clay MECHANICAL ANAL. $ PASS SOIL CONSTANTS PIPE DATA LIQUID LIMIT pH RESISTIVITY OHM.CM. PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX REMARECS SPEC GRAVITY (+3 " SPEC GRAVITY (-NO 4) Could not exudate down to 200 si SAND EQUIVALENT Exp Pressure 2.2 PSI 400 ps "R" VALUE <5 Exudation EXP PRESSURE, PSI * H g est recor e UNIFIED CLASS TRAFFIC INDEX 0 a O O O O O O O O O tD [~ ~O off a ~ fV rl OPT.MOIST $ 0 g o~ o MOISTURE DENSITY CURVE °o AASHTO DESIGNATION T99 METHOD • MAX. DRY WT. ~/CU.FT. 0 g a ~ Ln N ya a w o w a N a~ ~ w ~ y W z a °' z 0 a° r 0 >z ~ za w k ~ w ,I ~, n ° C a °L O 0~ 0 O DRY o DENSITY $ LBS./CF 0 0 S 0 g N a 0 .. MOISTURE IN PERCENT THIS REPORT COVERS ONLY MATERIAL AS REPRESENTED BY THIS SAMPLE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY COVER ALL SOIL FROM THIS LAYER OR SOURCE. Reviewed By IDAHO WASHINGTON OREGON WYOMING MONTANA U AH NE DA SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Bob L. Haley December 20, 1996 City of Meridian 3 3 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Medimont Subdivision Dear Councilmen: • -~. I have reviewed the application for Medimont Subdivision and find that it includes approximately 18 homes assuming a median value of $100,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.12 and in the attendance zone for Chief Joseph Elementary School, Meridian Middle school and Meridian High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 4 elementary aged children, 3 middle school aged children, and 2 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 138% of capacity. Since no turnaround is located within Medimont Subdivision, a bus stop will need to be located on Franklin Road. Franklin Road is a very heavy traffic zone and may require additional safety measures. The Meridian School District will grant approval of this development, however this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools. There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. The cost per student for newly constructed schools, excluding site purchase price and offsite improvements, exceeds $5,000 per elementary student and $10,000 per middle or high school student. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, ~~~ Jim Carberry, Administrator of Support Programs BOARD OF TRUSTEES Larry Andrews • Wally Hedrick • Holly Houfburg • Jim Keller • Steve Mann ^ i ~ ~~-u J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208/376-7330 FAX: 208/323-9336 January 13, 1997 Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Transmitted Via Fax to Will Berg & Shari Stiles: 887-4813 Transmitted Via Fax to Bruce Freckleton: 887-1297 and by mail Dear Mr. Berg: r.. i:. ;.. ~ ~~.._ _.,.~ ....a RE: MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION (Properties West, Inc.) Annexation with Preliminary Plat We have received a Memorandum dated January 9, 1997, from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, identifying their general and site specific comments concerning the above-referenced application to be heard by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission on January 14, 1997. We wish to make a response to each of the items discussed in that memorandum. In addition, please find enclosed a revised Preliminary Plat and Engineering Concept Plan per the requirements of Staff review. Our response is arranged in the same order and format as the above-mentioned memorandum: GENERAL COMMENTS: The annexation legal description submitted is in conformance with City and State Ordinances as stated by Staff. The Engineering Concept Plan, Sheet 2 of the Preliminary Plat, shows piping of two user ditches along the south and east property boundaries. NMID has no jurisdiction over the delivery ditches. Plans will be submitted to the users of the ditch for approval. Please note that the bulk of the water delivery is for the Medimont Subdivision property. 3. Any existing wells and septic tanks will be removed from service that may be situated on the property. 4. A soils profile has been prepared along with a groundwater monitoring program this past irrigation season. This information was gathered by STRATA, and their recommendations will be submitted to the City with the first-phase plans. A storm water system design will be prepared during the first-phase plan development process.- The storm water master plan, with detailed plans, will be submitted to ACHD and NMID for their review and approval. These approval letters will be submitted to the City. .. ~-r~ ~ • ~~-u-B~ ~/ Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk Engineers Surveyors Planners January 13, 1997 Page 2 6. The fire hydrant placements are shown on the Engineering Concept Plan. We hereby request that the City Water Works Superintendent review these placements and comment on their positions. There are no known flood plain areas on this site in accordance with FEMA mapping. 8. The developer will install the street name signs, construct an approved water system, pressure irrigation system, and road base system prior to building permit issuance. 9. This letter shall act as our response to the City Staff's General and Site Specific Comments. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: The Engineering Concept plan shows the proposed sanitary sewer line connection at the NW corner of the development. in East Franklin Road. The developer hereby requests that the City notify him immediately if there is a lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity for this development. Main line sizing shall be 8" throughout with the sewer mains situated in the south and west corridors as shown on the Concept Plan. The Engineering Concept plan shows the proposed water line connection at the NW corner of the development in East Franklin Road. The developer hereby requests that the City notify him immediately if there is a lack of domestic and fire water capacity for this development. The main line sizing is shown on the Concept plan. We hereby request that the City staff review these sizes for compliance with their requirements. All waterlines are shown on said Concept Plan to be situated within the north and east corridors. A detailed landscape plan will be prepared and submitted to the City with the first-phase development plans for approval by City staff. The landscaping proposed will be discussed during-the January 14, 1997 public hearing. All necessary letters of credit will be submitted to the City during the processing of the Final Plat, after preliminary and final plat approval. 4. A development agreement is anticipated and encouraged by the developer for this project. It is suggested that the development agreement be used to strengthen the requirements that the City deems appropriate for the developer and individual lot owners within this subdivision. The development agreement should also be used to restrict the types of uses in the IL Zone, the individual landscape requirements, maintenance of properties, building types, storage limitations, etc. In other words, this agreement can perform the same functions as a Conditional Use Permit without the requirement to process multiple permits in the future. A chain, link fence is planned for the perimeter of this subdivision. It will be installed during each phase of construction (two phases planned). The preliminary plat (Concept Plan) has been amended to show the proposed fencing. 6. The present land uses and zoning have been added to the enclosed amended preliminary plat per your request. • • ~~-u-B~ Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk Engineers Surveyors Planners January 13, 1997 Page 3 To design the placement of the pressure irrigation line along the rear of these industrial size lots would be costly. Therefore, we wish to address an alternative design. The main line could be positioned along the west and south sides of the planned streets within a utility easement. All other utilities will be installed in a common trench along the north and east sides of the street. The individual pressure irrigation connection could be positioned in the center of the lot, 10 feet from the planned sanitary sewer connection. This arrangement should avoid conflicts with all other utilities, including individual domestic water meters. We will discuss this concept and any supplementary water connection to the City's system at the time of development plan preparation for Phase L 8. 250 watt street lights are shown on the Engineering Concept Plan. We concur that the final location should be established after the electrical distribution plan is prepared by Idaho Power Company. Their plan will be developed during the Phase I Development Plan preparation. The developer will install street lights at his expense. 9. The street name of "E. Kalispell St." is shown for the stub street in question on the Preliminary Plat. However, this street name was accidentally deleted from the Engineering Concept Plan. The amended plan is enclosed for your use. We hereby request that the City allow the developer to use a "hammerhead style" turn-around in lieu of the requested 50-foot radius turn-around. The hammerhead has been used and approved in many other locations within the City. It also has less impact on adjoining lots. In addition, the Meridian Fire Chief and ACHD have indicated that they will .accept this style of turn-around. A temporary easement document will be prepared for owner signature and delivered with the final plat to ACHD and the City. 10. ACRD has recommended in their Site Specific comments that the developer provide a road trust fund for the construction of the sidewalk along East Franklin Road. If ACHD will allow the developer to construct the sidewalk in lieu of paying the road trust fee, he will do so. But he cannot do both. Therefore, if the City requires the sidewalk to be constructed at this time, we respectfully request that they make that request to ACHD. 11. A 20-foot planting strip is not planned along the westerly boundary of this development. There is a small residence and a mobile home situated on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. States adjacent to the northwest corner of this development. They have indicated to us, and the City has a letter on file from them, that they do not desire a landscaped buffer. Therefore, to comply with City codes, the developer will be submitting a variance application to remove this portion of landscape buffer strip for City Council consideration prior to their public hearing for the annexation/preliminary plat for this development. 12. The developer will be offering his lots for sale to all persons interested in light industrial uses. These potential buyers will include contractors in the building trade such as electrical, mechanical, plumbing, cabinetry, etc. However, the 300-foot setback is too restrictive since the storage yard will be screened and its use limited. Therefore, to comply with City codes, the developer will be submitting a variance application to reduce this setback for City Council consideration prior to their public hearing for the annexation/pre-iminary plat for this development. l ~ • ~~-u-B~ Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk Engineers Surveyors Planners January 13, 1997 Page 4 13. The users in this development will require security lighting for their property. There are lighting methods available to reduce glare to adjoining properties. The developer is agreeable to implementing these requirements within the CCR's and development agreement, if necessary. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City Staff provide us with their recommended standards for acceptable levels of impact or glare. 14. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan is a general guideline to direct the planning and growth of the City of Meridian. Certain suggestions and policies have been identified within the Comp Plan. However, even though the City has officially adopted the Comp Plan, it does not represent Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Also, the Comp Plan states the following: "Implementation is the phase of the planning process which makes the goals and policies, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, become realities. The Plan, no matter how good it may be, is a useless document if it is never used and implemented." Implementation procedures must inc-ude zoning amendments. The Meridian Comp Plan further states: "The land use delineations depicted in the Comprehensive Land Use Map are not precise, but rather the Comprehensive Land Use Map represents along-range vision of community development in generalized areas." With regard to the Conditional Use Permit requirement, the Comp Plan states: "Mixed Use is a planning category which refers to the coordinated development of several major uses as part of a single project, such as specialty retail/commercial, variable density residential, offices, motels, industrial, service, commercial, and public and semi-public uses." Medimont Subdivision is a single controlled industrial use, not a mixed use. In addition, the Comp Plan states: "Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed." Again, Medimont Subdivision is a single planned use. It is not a mixture of uses as defined in the Comp Plan. In addition, the developer will have a very restrictive and controlling set of CCR's that will dictate the look of the project, as well as the allowed uses. These allowed uses are more restrictive than the current IL allows. As mentioned before, these restrictions and requirements can be incorporated within the required development agreement. Therefore, stringent guidelines are self-imposed. In addition, the Conditional Use process will be an expensive and time-consuming venture for each and every user within Medimont Subdivision as well as the City Staff. The City staff will be required to process 18 separate CUP's. The City Planning & Zoning and City Council will need to review each application and make recommendations. These extra expenses and added time will constitute extra burden being placed upon City Staff, elected officials, and land owners. It .' ~~-u-B~ Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk Engineers Surveyors Planners January 13, 1997 Page 5 would seem that the City should seek out a more streamlined method,. such as Design Review by Staff. It is our opinion that a streamlined method is available with the CCR's (approved by the City) and. the Development Agreement which can identify these goals. Also, the City should take note that by requiring this development to be placed under the CUP requirement is essentially placing the developer, Properties West, at an unfair disadvantage compared to his immediate competition. The City would be creating an un-level playing field in the marketplace. Many other industrial subdivisions within one mile of this site enjoy the benefit of not being governed by the CUP requirement rule. The Meridian Comp Plan states: "Every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth and development which furthers employment and economic self sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and employment center." The Meridian Comp Plan also states: "Industrial development within the urban service planning area should receive the highest priority." In summary, the developer does not agree with a Conditional Use Permit requirement for Medimont Subdivision. Further, he believes that better, more efficient controls are available. Please review the enclosed information . If you require additional information, please call. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ary A. Lee, P.E./L.S. Project Manager GAL:Ihc Enclosures cc: Jon Barnes, Properties West, Inc. Honorable Robert Corrie, Mayor, and City Council Members Jim Johnson, Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman and P/Z Members f:\projects\11130\admin\cityltr3.doc Transportation Statistics Annual Report Federal Aviation Administration funds noise compatibility planning programs. The Noise Control Act of 1972 authorized EPA to regulate noise emissions from vari- ous equipment, including setting opera- tional standards for trucks and rail equipment. Effective January 1988, a new truck weighing more than 10,000 pounds is limited to generating a noise level of no more than 80 decibels (dBA), a noise level that is roughly equivalent to that of an alarm clock or a sewing machine. (See fig- ure 7-21.) The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 required the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop noise standards for mitigating traffic noise, including noise level criteria for different types of land-use activities. The Federal FIGURE Transportation Noise Levels, dBA / 115 Motorcycle 110 Dump Truck Diesel Train• Bus Heavy Truck, Snowmobile Pickup Truck Mack Truck Jeep Wagoneer 1os747(T) 7o7(T) 100 190 Howitzer 1ao 170 160 M14 Rifle v 150 140 Hand Grenade (75 ff) c 130 Skil Hammer _ _ d 727(T) 95 707(L) 747(L) '< so Dc1om Prop(T) ~ 727(L) DC10(L) 80 Prop(L 75 70 (T) Takeoff (L) Landing 120 Locomotive Whistle Chain Saw 110 Chinook Helicopter Bench Ginder 100 Lawnmower Air Compressor ~ Printing Plant ]g Alarm Clock c 80 Sewing Machine 0 7 Vacuum Cleaner 60 Conversation Window Air Conditioner 50 Washing Machine 40 Refrigerator 30 Whisper Crickets in Wilderness 20 Rustling Leaves 10 ~~a Railroad Administration (FRA) issued re~ OF lations for compliance with noise emission regulations set forth by EPA. Considerable ss has been made in the past two ~~k l/ ,'..' progre decades in controlling transportation noise at its source, as well as in the reduction of noise impacts on various communities. Noise barriers are one mitigation mea- sure that is most often associated with noise abatement. An FHWA survey has estimated that more than 720 miles of noise barriers had been constructed as of 1989. The total cost for these construc- tions was estimated to be more than $635 million (in 1989 dollars). Normally, a noise level of 55 to 60 dBA is acceptable in residential areas, and 125 dBA is considered the pain threshold. A potential health effect from exposure to noise levels more than 75 dBA includes changes in motor coordination. Based on a report published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 0.4 percent of the U.S. population is exposed to noise levels more than 75 dBA from highway vehicles, and 0.1 percent is exposed to similar noise levels from air- craft. (See table 7-14.) In addition to its effects on health, noise can also diminish property values. By one estimate, traffic noise reduced home prop- erty values from $6 to $182 per decibel, even after some steps were taken to miti- gate noise problems. Based on total travel in urban areas in 1989, noise damage from cars and trucks to property in urban areas is estimated at about $9 billion (1989 dol- lars) per year. Trucks are responsible for ~~ about 85 percent of this damage. Transport and Spill of Waste Materials Each year, our economy generates mil- lions of tons of waste and hazardous materials that must be moved, creating a difficult and growing problem for the transportation system. Data on the tons of hazardous materials transported suggest that transport across state lines increased by 7 percent from 1987 to 1989.33 Because the data do not include transportation of hazardous materials within state bound- aries, the actual tons of hazardous materi- als transported are expected to be higher. The more hazardous the materials trans- ported, the higher the risk of accident and damage to the environment. 168