Loading...
1988 12-20• • A G E N D A MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DF'~~~ 20, 1988 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DF.~'~~ 6, 1988: (Al'PR0~7ID) l: PUBLIC II~ARlNG: VARIANCE REQUEST, T & R CONSTRUCTION, FENCE AT CRESTWOOD #3 SUBDIVISION: (FIlVDINGS '1'O BE PREPARID) 2: APPOINT NEW N~BER 'I'0 PLANNING & ZONING COMN.QSSION: (TIM HEPPER APPOINTID) 3 : DEPAR'Il~NT REPORTS MERIDIAN CITY COUNCII, DECFd~ER 20, 1988 Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 p.m.: M~nbers Present: Ron Tolsma,Bert Myers, Bob Giesler, Walt Morrow: Others Present: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Paul Stutzman, Moe Alidjani, Rob Prindle, Cheryl Prindle, Twayne Walker, Diana Jackson, K. Buemeler, Lyman Belnap, Elaine Schlekeway, Chase Mart The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held December 6, 1988 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Public Hearing: Variance Request by T & R Construction on Fence at Crestwood #3 Subdivision: Mayor Kingsford: At this time I will open the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on this request? Twayne Walker, T&R construction, Walker was sworn by the City Attorney: Walker: First off, I would like to pass out scene material prepared by Hubble Engineering, (On File with these Minutes)We would like to illustrate to you the fence and what it really does look like ccsnpared to the road out front and haw high we really are, Lyman Belnap our Attorney is here to speak to you also, if there are any questions I can't answer. In that packet we have an illustration showing what the fence looks like, there is also .a letter from Hubble Engineering and ACHD saying there is no problem with the fence being where it is at, the drawing from Hubble Engineering show a difference of 1' 3/8" this is what we are asking for, this is according to their calculations and that varies anywhere from 8" to 14", so that is what we are requesting a variance for is to add an additional foot to the fence. Lyman Belnap, 6903 Kingsdale Drive, Boise, Belnap was sworn by the City Attorney: Belnap: This is an observation, it has been about five years since I was before this Council, your building has dramatically improved, I congradulate you: I have been asked to represent T&R Construction and the Home Owners who have purchased homes in Crestwood #3 Subdivision, all of them believed that the burn that had bin there as near as I can determine approximately seven years, was going to be a burn fence c~nbination that would adequately protect the families living in the subdivision and enhance the ascetics of that area along Franklin Road, now because the total height of the barrier exc~ds the Ordinance, they have had to seek a Variance from this Council, you have the engineering report and I think we are going to differ a little bit , I was just glancing back through your minutes of November 15, 1988 where it looks like it depends on where you take the measur~nent whether it is the street inside the subdivision or from Franklin Road as to how much fence would be allowed on top of the bump and come within or without the Ordinance. Taking the measurements fr~n the position that our engineer did, we are ta]Jcing about an average of one foot 3'8 inch in excess of what the Ordinance would allow by allowing a four foot fence along this bu~an. In my opinion four feet is not enough but that is all the contractor is trying to do, I do not know if I would want my children contained by a four foot fence along Franklin Road, I can not seem to find out in the Ordinances as to where MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL • DECF~f~ER 20, 1988 WAGE # 2 you set the pin to start measureing the six foot ,whether it has to be from the street within the subdivision itself or like in this case where you are bordering a major throughfare, where you have to use judgement in starting to make the measuJCement because you are not trying to protect anyone fran an interior street but fran Franklin Road, ACfID has made their determination that there is no sight hazard fran Franklin Road, which I think is critical because Mrs. Schlekeway has all the right in the world to preserve the value of her property and I understand has raised the issue before this Council that by putting in this burrs fence combination it will obstruct her view or the view of future development, people who. would purchase lots on her ground in the future and adversely impact the value of her ground. I had T & R take some pictures, so those who have not driven by, I will hand these to you, (Pictures on File) 1 & 2 are taken standing on top of the burns, 3 on top of the burin shooting across the street to Mrs. Schlekeway's property, 4 looking out of the access of the subdivision, 5 is a shot from the edge of Franklin facing the burin, the next two pictures give an idea of what the burn would look like when developed, it is my understanding that there are covenants and restrictions that require that it be maintained, that it is not going to be the weed patch I have read about in earlier minutes, the next two pictures are a little bit of concern as I was again reviewing the November minutes, they relate to the prior development, I read in the minutes that the rest of the fence is a six foot fence, according to our measurenents and of course these were just taken from .the base to the top not fran any point in a road, the brick part is slightly in excess of eight foot the wood. part that is shown in those last two pictures is approximately six foot three inches;, It is our position to this Council and the Mayor that the burns as it now exists with a four foot fence is going to be shorter than the existing fence if you consider that three hundred feet of brick that runs along there as part of the fencing of the earlier subdivision and in our opinion far more attractive. I can not m;n;m;ze Mrs. Schlekeways concern about noise but it just seers illogical to me th..at a canbination of a landscaped soil burin with a four foot fence would create more noise than what already exists there, just the opposite. I do not have to be a sound engineer or anyone on this Council to realize that it will not create noise more than a solid fence would, actually it would be less. I understand also that there are probably two reasons not just the impact on it might have on a n~r?hbors property but as I read in the minutes there has been comment made about the conduct of T&R in obtaining building permits and I do not know all .the particulars, all I can do is ask my client, but it is that wane old syndrome, you can take a situation and you can take a six inch brush or you can take a smaller brush to paint the stroke and to follow the problen, it is my understand- ing that when they were developing the here here that one of the partners thought one had got the building permit, the other thought the other had got the pe~i.t, they had sane of their footing in when it dawned on then that neither one did, they asked the secretary to go down and get the permit and that even fell through. I understand the second had to do with starting the fence on this burns, I understand they had to pay double the building fee in order to build the Beehive hares facility as a result of that oversigh•~,I do not know if there has been any type of penalty assessed, I guess you have not assessed a building permit on the fence because you have not allowed it. It is our position that there is no developer in this valley without sin, these gentle- men arer~ii•.intentiomalayiinMeridian to try and defraud this Council or to slip by because practices maybe more home town or in any way reflecting on their part to try and beat the system. They, came to Meridian because they thought i:he projects they were doing was a good catuminity to do these in and they are willing to pay their faix share. I do not think it is proper for this Council to decide the value of whether or not this burrs-fence canbination should be allowed as a variance based on the fact that my clients have stumbled twice on a building permit and I can not be to firm about how personally I feel that would be improper. The final thing that I would like to say, I know we are talking about values ,the bottom line is bucks, if we are talking about ascetics, I think what they are proposing enhances the project in the caYmtunity. r~RIDIAN crrY co~nvclL D 20, 1988 PAGE # 3 If it ccen,es right down to it if it is a matter of how much economically would the neighbors property be affected verus haw much for sure this property would be affected as best I could detexmine my clients would be facing at least $10,000.00 - in reexcavation to remove the burro they did not put in there, all of the ;.utilities run through the burro, they would have to be replaced, at an estimated cost of 4 to 5 thousand and of course new fencing would have to be arn~ired because they purchas~l four foot fencing. Again you might say tough luck developer, you moved without checking with us or reading the Ordinance, I think the developer acted in good faith in taking a look at the burns and deciding that in order to protect those who are buying their hones four foot was reasonable, and I think they acted in good faith - in caning to this Council and seeking a Variance. The bottcen line is if you deny it, the homeowners who purchased in that subdivision relying upon that kind of prgtection are not going to get it. I read in the minutes the possibility of putting the fence on the Franklin side of the burn, when each one of the tennants goes to put his property line fence and zips over the burro, he is going to be in violation and have. to be before this Council. So we respectfully request that you grant the Variance, taken frcxn the Franklin side we are talking about an average one foot 3/8 inch Variance and we are talking as near as I can detect amore attractive and actually a more ascetically beautiful fence than what exists and block less. Mayor Kingsford: Is there anyone else from the Public who wishes to offer testimony? Diana Jackson, Hceneowner in Crestwood. #3, Jackson was sworn by the City Attorney: Jackson: I think that all of us when we first purchased our property knew that there was a five foot or a large burn and that there was going to be a four foot fence on the burn, I know part of it is a misunderstanding on all parts but that was our under- standing.we would like to see that a least a four foot fence is put in because that will protect our children and pets and it will give us the privacy we need for our back yards, anything shorter won't keep anything out or in. I would really like for you to consider the fact that anything shorter than a four foot fence would not protect our children. That is what is important to us. Having a six foot fence on the Franklin side of the burn, sure it will keep our children in but when we go up over the burin we will not be able to have a six foot fence. Chase Mart, 1491 W. Crestwood, Mart was sworn by the City Attorney: Mart: In my mind as far as I see it, we are not talking about the City issue here as to whether the fence is persay within the Ordinances of the City, I think we all ought to step back a m~nent and think of the-lives of a young child that perhaps, lets say a four or five year old child, who can scale a four foot fence much easier than a six foot fence, I would assume that if one of the residents that live on that side of the road had a child that did scale the fence and did get out on Franklin and was struck by a autcanobile, I am sure you are all aware of certain liabilitie$ there are scene big liabilities that may ecene up. in particular lawsuits that you know. the city Council was resistive to put a fence for whatever reason. I am a strong believer that we need to do what is right here and not punish perhaps the hers because perhaps T &R Construction did sotrvething to dissatisfy the City Council. I myself a.s a resident here would be extremely dispondent and put out to feel that I was punished as a h~vner--here, spent a lot of money for a home, planned to live here for a while and I am going to be punished for someone elses actions. I think from a laymans point of view assuming that T&R will provide the services they have shown here obviously it will --make a nicer looking cce~enunity for all of us to live in. Again to reiterate the issue here is the safety of children, not the Ordinance. Mayor Kingsford: One question, as you started off it sounded to me as if you were under the illusion that they are asking for a six foot fence on the burn? MERZD?AN CITY COUNCIL • • DECE~~IDER 20, 1988 PAGE # 4 Mart: No, I realize they are building a four foot fence and I personally feel that is totally inadequate. Would you want your children living on Franklin with a four foot fence if you had a six year old. ~~ ' Mayor Kingsford: The point I wanted to make was .that your testimonyindicated that you were for a six foot fence and the issue is a four foot fence. I wasp not clear on what you meant. Mart: I support any fence that is going to go along there but from my point of view a five or six foot fence would be the only correct answer for the situation. That is the right thing to do. Mayor Kingsford: Anyone else from the public who would like to offer testimony? Walker: I would like to pass out drawings ,our secretary went to a lot of work to color these up, Walker, passed out a concept of how the burn- would look with the fence and the landscaping: (On File with these Minutes). Mayor Kingsford: If there is no other testimony, I will close the Public Hearing, I would. like to respond to a couple of things, first off, it is not the policy of this Council too punish any builder or developer, if that was the case we would probably not have any builders or developers work here twice, given the history of builders and developers I know. Certainly that is not our intent or desire in any way. A question that I have Mr. Walker, you arrived at a one foot 3/8 inch differential, was that from the crest of Franklin? Walker: That diagram show that frcan the top of sidewalk. Mayor Kingsford: You got a reading for sidewalks frcan ACHD? They gave you elevations? Walker: No, fresn Hubble Engineering. Giesler: Is what you are talking about on the Franklin side or frcen inside the sub- division? Walker: The Franklin side, back of sidewalk. Morrow: Counselor, would you address the issue of where the fence should be taken from? Counselor: Under our Ordinance it is not specifically clear as to where you take the measurement frcan as relates to the specific Ordinance, there are other Ordinance provisions however that indicate that you take the measurements from inside the subdivision. I do not have a copy of the Ordinance Book here with me but I can make reference to that, that was a question that came up when the issue was before the Council prior. That's what we deterntined. It is ~. gray area. Morrow: If it is taken from the inside then the variance that they are asking for is greater than the one foot 3/8 inches, is that correct? Mayor Kingsford: You might ask the City Engineer to coaYanent on that: City Engineer: The elevations I shot out there were from Franklin Road and they are c~nparable to what Hubble Engineering has. I did not shut the sidewalk on the inside, I shot-the asphalt, that varied fratn 4"9" to 5'4" to the top of the buan.If the measurement was off the sidewalk you would take roughly 4" of that figure which would make the measurement from the inside 4'5"to 5' to the top of the burn. MERMAN CITY COUNCIL • • DECEN.~ER 20,1988 PAGE # 5 Morrow: Then frcan the inside that would make the overall 8'5" to 9' is that correct? City Engineer: Yes. - Morrow: It s.to me that one of the great things about the construction industry is that your days pay is based upon your days work and that if you make a mistake you fix it at your own time and at your own expense and everybody from a first day apprentice to a thirty year journeyman understands those principles, in this case none of the citizens of Meridian, Mrs. Schlekeway nor the hcaneowners of the subdivis- ion made the mistakes in terms of the buns, the mistakes were made by the developer contractors not doing their groundwork, not checking out where they were at, not getting the help fran the City none of these people are at fault, in answer to Mr. Marts point about children and a four foot fence those points are valid, children are entitled to be protected by a four foot, five foot or six foot fences but not at the expense of the rest of the ccerenunity, it seems to me that the people that ought to be correcting the situation here are the ones who made the mistake in the first place, not us as a City, not the residents of the subdivision, not the Schlekeways nor the rest of the citizens of the City of Meridian based on that I think I would move for a recommendation of denial of the Variance and that any berm or fence that is going to be constructed, be constructed within the current City Codes, Building Codes and the restrictive covenants of Crestwood Subdivision. Mayor Kingsford: I think under State Code we would require Findings of .Fact & Conclus- ions Law drawn by the Attorney before we could act on this request. Giesler: Who is going to take care of the landscaping along Franklin Road? Walker: The Homeowners Association. Giesler: I have a question for Mr. Mart, do I understand you correctly, are you in favor of the Variance or are you in favor of the six foot fence? Mart: My first preference is that number I am in favor of a six foot fence, if that is not achievable under any means then I am in favor of a four foot fence. Giesler: We can achieve it by putting. it on the property line which I feel is probably the way it should be done. I think if we are going to achieve a six foot high fence which I feel is very much in need, sure 3 or 4 years old that four foot fence is very adequate but we are talking five and six or older when we are still concerned about the highway, yes there is no doubt in my mind when you are talking about liability ~- there sanebody is going to be libel and that could very much happen, ite~ me feel yes we need the six foot high fence and the only way to achieve that is put the fence on the property line and then the necessary thing done with the burns to make that work.I think this would be my rec~anendation. I have sane real probl~ns with the Variance. Myers: Where is the property line you are talking about, is that between the burns and Franklin Road? Giesler: Yes: Mayor Kingsford: I have a question, Mr. Walker, what utilities are in that boon? Walker: Telphone and cable. Mayor Kingsford: Any other questions or comments? We have a Motion on the floor which I think is out of order. MERIDL~N CITY COUNCIL • • D 20, 1988 PAGE #6 Morrow: I withdraw the Motion: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Tolsma to instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Variance Request by T & R Construction: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Appoint new member to the Planning & Zoning Cc~[mission: Mayor Kingsford: At this time I would like to ncsninate Mr. Tim Hepper to fill the vacancy left by Walt Morrow moving on to the City Council, Mr. Hepper has agreed to that appointment, this would be for a six year teen as Mr. Morrow's tertm is up. Myers: What is Mr. Hepper's background? Mayor Kingsford: Mr. Hepper has been in the building trade, is a Meridian High School graduate in the sixties, has been in the building trade for well even going back into his teenage years. He has lived in the area all these years and I think would represent that aspect of the industry very well. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Tolsma to approve the appointment of Mr. Tim Hepper to fill the vacancy on the Planning & Zoning Commission: Motion Carried: All Yea: Departrneit Reports: City Engineer: We discovered a problem in Cherry Lane Subdivision at one of the townhouse units where we had been reading the wrong meter for the wrong unit. These units are owned by Mr. Kunkel and Mr. Reed, this has resulted in an overcharge to Mr. Kunkel of approximately $900.00 and an undercharge to Mr. Reed of the same amount. Mayor ,Kingsford met with Mr. Kunkel today to discuss the situation. Mayor Kingsford: I told him that I did not have a problem as Mayor to look at refunding the last year, to go back in preceding years I thought we should have Council approval. I told him that I felt there was some obligation on his part, I think that we are wrong, but those are large bills for a man & his wife gone most of the time and that he should have brought this to our attention, he agreed in part to that, it would be my suggestion that we go ahead and refund most of that, it would be my suggestion that we pay him back $850.00. The total amount of overpayment is $907.00: Myers: What is the possibilty of Reed paying his share? Mayor Kingsford: The situation over there is that the one side is being rented and orginally when they first went in there was the same person in there and actually his bill was less than Mr. Kunkels, since that time Mr. Reed has rented the unit and there has been mare people in the family, I think I have to agree with What Mr. Morrow said today when I visited with him, it is the cost of doing business, we errored. I think we have a real problem is asking a person who rents property and recoups utility bills from those people that we made an error and would you please go back and try to recoup frcan the renters you have had. The Council members concurred with the Mayors ccs~mlents . The Motion wa.s made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to refund Mr. Kunkel $850.00: Motion Carried: all Yea: ME,RZDIAN CITY COUNCIL . . DECJ~ER 20, 1988 PACE # 7 - Mayor Kingsford: basked the City Engineer to briefly advise what th~status of the bridges in the Meridian Area: City Engineer: I have a map here that shows the different bridges location in the Meridian Area and he explained what the status of those were as far as replacement or how they were rated for priority. _ Tolsma: The Fire D~a.rtment and QRU took on the task of providing Christmas gifts for the Christians Childrens Home on Duck Alley, they bought shoes, shirts and pants for thirty-three children. This was a volunteer project and I thought it was very cca~enend- able. Tolsma.: Another thing I had in mind was the metal building that is setting dawn here on a lot, a 40 foot trailer van at Nesmiths parked next to the garage dawn there that is not finished yet. Mayor Kingsford: The City Clerk will write a letter on this.Councilman Tolsma could you update us on the Hoff situation: Councilman Tolsma updated the Mayor & Council on the steps being taken by Hoff Industries to eliminate the noise problem. Advised Hoff was in the process of getting BSU Sound people to do some research on this. Being no further business to come before the Council the Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Giesler to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PINGS) APPROVED: '~ b KIlVGSFORD, Y pc:/ Mayor 'Council P & ~ Members Atty, Eng, Fire, Police Ward, Stuart, Gass, Stutzman Hallett, Va11ey News, Statesman ACRD, NIlvID, CDH, ACC, SID Mail (1) File (1) a ~,-_- ,_ _~ i ~ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION OF T & R CONSTRUCTION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE FENCE ORDINANCE AT CRESTWOOD ESTATES # 3 SUBDIVISION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS a~neROSe, ~rcoEaa~o &CR00K8T0N AHomeya and CounaeloB P.O. Box 427 INeNdlan, Idaho 83842 Tetephona8861481 The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on December 20, 1988, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, .and the City Council having head and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the. following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for December 20, 1988, the first publication of which was fifteen.(15) days prior to-said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 20, 1988 hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E •' ~ . . and 11-2-419 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3. That the Applicant is the owner of much of the subject property and is the developer of Crestwood Estates # 3. That many of the other lots in the subject property have been sold and are now owned by third parties two of whom testified at the hearing. 4. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential and has been developed in that fashion and there are single-family dwellings located in the subdivision. 5. That the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, 11-9-605 AMBROBE, FITLGERALO a cROOlcsrol4 Attomeya end Counsetore P.O. Bon 427 Meridiso, IdeAo 83842 Telepho~re 8881481 J, Fences, limit the maximum height of a fence in a residential district to six (6) feet= that Section 11-9-605 J. 4. also states that walls, latticework and screens shall be considered to be fences. 6. That the Applicant has requested a variance to construct a Four (4) foot fence on top of the berm that is adjacent to Franklin Road; that the top of the berm, i.e., where the proposed fence is to be located is not on the property line of the lots abutting Franklin Road but there is an approximate space of ten feet between the proposed location of the fence and the righ-of-way line of Franklin Road. 7. That the berm is a soil landscaping berm and is adjacent to Ftanklin Road; that the berm is between 3 feet and 3 feet 8 inches higher than the proposed sidewalk which Applicant proposes to construct next to Franklin Road. •~ .. AMBROSE, FITZ(4ERALD BCROOKBTON Attomeya and Counaelore P.O. Box 427 McNdlen, Idaho 83842 Telephone 888467 • 8. That the top of the berm is approximately 5 feet higher than the grade or level ground of Lot 4, Block 3, Crestwood Estates ~ 3. 9. That the grade level of Crest Wood Drive is appooximately 1 foot 7 inches lower than the grade level of Franklin Road. 10. That there is an existing fence in Crestwood Estates # 1-which also abutts Franklin Road and which is constructed of wood and brick; that this fence was constructed prior to the adoption of the Zoning, Development and Subdivision Ordinances; that the top of the wood portion of the fence is approximately 6 feet in height and the top of the wood portion is about 4 feet 9 inches above. the .south edge of the pavement of Franklin Road; that the top of the wood portion of this fence is approximately 1 foot 7 inches above the top of the berm. 11. That if a four foot fence were constructed on top of the berm and measuring from the proposed sidewalk adjacent to Franklin Road there would be a total fence height of approximately 7 feet 3 inches to 7 feet 8 inches; that measuring from Crest Wood Drive, at Lot 4 Block 3, the proposed 4 foot addition would make a fence of approximately 9 feet. 12. That the berm was placed there by a prior owner of Crestwood Estates ~ 3; it is not a natural berm; that the berm .has been there approximately seven years; that prior to the placement of the berm the area was level and the approximate same • AMBR08E, FITZ(iERALD 6CROOKBTON Attorneys arM Counselors P.O. Boz 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephorre 8884481 grade as the lots in the subdivision. 13. That the topography of the general area is flat and level; that there are no significant slopes or ground variations of natural occurence in the general vicinity. 14. That Franklin Road is designated as a principal arterial street in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 15. That the lots in question which abutt the berm abutt both Franklin Road and Crest Mood Drive and have frontage on both roads. 16. That the Ada County Highway District submitterd comment that found that Applicant was requesting a variance to construct a four foot fence on a five foot berm. 17. That the Applicant and his representative stated that they were asking for an approximate variance of from 8 to 14 inches from the 6 foot maximum fence height; that the berm had been there approximately seven years; that the fence would not create more of a noise problem for an adjacent land owner but would create less noise than a six foot wood fence; that it would cost in excess of $10,000.00 to remove the berm and additional funds to place a 6 foot fence at the location of the existing berm or on the property line; additionally several utilities would have to be relocated that are now in place in the berm; that neither the Applicant nor his representative spcifically addressed the issues of extraordinary hardship, unusual topography, or other physical conditions which were not • AMBROSE, FITZfiERALD 8 CROOKBTON Attomaysand Counaelore P.O. Boz 427 McHdian, Idaho 83842 Telephone888~481 self-inflicted. There was no factual statement, or even represenatation that the enforcement of the fence ordinance would cause a hardship to the Applicant; also, there was no evidence or representation that strict application of the fence ordinance would be unreasonable or impractical. 18. That the base justification presented by the Applicant as justification for the variance was for the safety of small children who do live, or might eventually live, in the homes adjacent to the berm; that there was some testimony that a 4 foot fence was insufficient for the safety of small children and that a 6 foot fence should be constructed. 19. That there was no testimony or evidence presented relating to whether the failure to grant the variance would deprive the Applicant, or the homeowners, of rights or privileges commonly enjoyed by other similar property; nor were there claims or representations that the granting of the variance would not confer on the Applicant or the homeowners any special privilege that is denied by the ordinances to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district, R-4; there was testimony that if the variance was not allowed the privacy of the lot owners would be reduced since people in vehicles driving along Franklin Road could see into the homes; that this situation is no different than the situation that already exists in Crestwood Estates Subdivision # 1 and exists in other subdivisions in Meridian such as those abutting Cherry Lane. 20. That the standard height of fences in residential districts in the City of Meridian for the backyards of homes is six (6) feet normally measured from the ground upon which the fence is located because almost all ground in the City is fairly level; That there does not normally exist in the City of Meridian slopes or ground variations such as are involved in the subject variance request. 21. That two home owners in the subdivision testified in favor of the variance but one indicated that a 6 foot fence would be his preference; that the concern of the two lot owners was for the safety of the children in the subdivision. 22. That there was no testimony given at the hearing in opposition to the application; that the representative for the Applicant did mention the impacts on Mrs. Schlekeway and she had previously objected to the berm and the fence as being a possible cause for increase noise and possible lack of maintenance between the fence and Franklin Road. 23. That the covenants conditions and restrictions for AMBR08E, FITZaERALD &CROOKBTON Attorneys end Counselore P.O. Box 427 McNdlen,ldeho 83842 Telephone 8881181 Crestwood Estates Subdivision # 3, submitted for approval by the City Council, state in Article VII, Section 10, as follows: "No fence shall be erected with a height greater-than 6 at or behind the front building lime of any residence..." 24. That there is sufficient space between the top of the berm and the .existing right-of-way line of Franklin Road to build a six (6) foot fence without a variance from the fence Ordinance; that such a fence would provide as much protection for the small children in the homes and the subdivision as is provided in any other subdivision in Meridian. aMSROSE, FITL~ERALD BCROOKBTON Attoma,s and Counaetora P.O. Box427 AAeNdian, Idaho 83842 Tetephone888~4481 CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City. has ,authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to 11-9-612 of the Subdivision Ordnance. 3. That the... City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in .the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That while all the provisions of Sections 11-2-419 and 11-9-612 are applicable to the variance, the following specific provisions of those sections are noted as being particularly pertinent to the application: 11-2-419 B, Application and Standards for Variances 12. Characteristics of subject property which prevent compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance; 14. Difficulty or hardship which would result if requirements of this Ordinance were applied to subject property; 15. Unusual or pecular circumstances which indicate that regulations of this Ordinance should not be strictly complied with; 16. Statement that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 17. Statement that a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under terms of this Ordinance; 18. Statement that special conditions- or circumstances exist that were not a result of the applicant's action; 19. Statement that granting the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; AweROBE, FITZdERALD g CR001C8TON Altomeye and Counaelore P.O. Box 427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8881481 23. A statement of how the would convenience the applicant would profit shall also represen convenience is the sole is requested. granting of appplicant therefrom wi t whether reason why the variance and how the hich statement profit and the variance 11-6-612 VARRIANCES 1. Purpose - The Council, as a result of unique • circumstances limitations or variances from finding that compliance wi• the Ordinance requirement is (such as topographic - physical a planned unit development), may grant the provisions of this Ordinance on a undue hardhip results from the strict th specific provisions or requirments of or that application of such provision or impracticable. 2. Findings - No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly. be impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That the strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topograghy, other physical conditions or other such conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these conditions would result in inhibiting the achievement of the objectives of this Ordiancce; c. That the granting of the specific-variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in whcih the property is situated; d. That suc provisions e. That such nullifying Ordinance Plan. h variance will. not violate the of the Idaho Code; and variance will not have the effect of the interest -and purpose of this and the Comprehensive Development 6. That other specific provions of the Zoning and Development Ordinances are to be noted as follow: 11-2-403 B Definitions: AMBROBE, F17ZOERALD 3CROOK3TON Attomays and Counealons P.O. Box 427 Ma-Idian, Idaho 83842 Telephone 88&4481 Hardship - An unusual situation on the-part of an individual property owner which will not permit him to • enjoy the full utilization of his property as is enjoyed by others in the community. A hardship can only exist when it is not self-created. Grade, Established - The curb-line grade at the lot lines as approved by the Ada County Highway District Engineer or appropriate agency. Lot, Through - A lot other than a corner lot having frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel streets. On a through lot, both street lines shall be deemed front lot limes. Section 11-9-605 J. FENCES, is incorporated herein as if set forth in full but the following specific provisions are specifically noted: 9. Subject to other restrictions contained in this Section, "Fences", the maximum fence heights. in each zoning district shall be as follows: a. R-4, R-8, R-15, R-40 & L-O 6.0 feet Also, the following partial provisons f rom the fence ordiance are noted: 1. In subsection 2 the measurement is made from the grade. 2. In subsection' 4 walls, laticework and screens shall be considered to be fences. 3. In subsection 6.b. the measurement is made from the crown of the street. 7. That it is concluded that the soil landscaping berm is AMBROBE, FfRdERALD b CROOI(BTON ANOmeye erM Counaelore P.O. Box 427 McNdien,ldeho 83842 Telephone 8884481 a screen as contemplated under 11-9-605 J. 4. and that both. the berm and the proposed four (4) foot fence consititute a "fence" under the fencing Ordinance. 8. That in order to place a four (4) foot fence on top of • ANIBROSE, Flrzo~-I.o & CROOI(BTON Attorneys end Counseloro P.O. Box 427 Me-Idlen, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 a three foot, or in excess of a three foot, berm a variance from the fence Ordiance is required; that regardless of whether you measure the grade from Franklin Road or from Crest Wood Drive, a variance from the fence ordinance wi required to construct the fence Applicant desires to construct. 9. That the evidence presented by the Applicant showed that it would be costly to re-excavate the berm to lower it and that it would cost him extra money to re-locate the utilities that are presently evidence that such there any evidence Applicant, even thou 10. That the existance for seven located within the berm; that there was no hardships were not self-inflicted nor was that such cost would be a hardship upon the xgh costly. evidence showed that the berm had been in years; that the Council takes judicial notice that the berm did not always exist and that the land around the general vicinity is level and there are no natural existing topographical conditions which would constitute a sufficient reason to grant a varriance. 11. That it is concluded that the utilities in the berm was self-infliced; that berm was adjustable prior to the palcement of fact the Applicant informed the Council that height of the berm on one occassion. 12. That as pertains to the specific 11-9-612 A. 2., it is spefically concluded as placement of the the heighth of the the utilites and in it had lowered the Findings required by follows: atwsROS~, Fnza~A~o & CFi00K8TON Attorneys and Coonaetors P.O. BOZ 427 Meridhm, Idaho 83842 Telephone 8884481 a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the fence ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; b. That the strict compliance with the requirments of the Ordinance would .not result in extrordinary hardship to the Applicant because of unusual topography, other physical condiditons or other such conditions which were not self-inflicted c. That there was insufficient evidence presented to the Council as to the whether the granting of the variance would not be detremental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area and therefore no spcific finding is made thereon; there was some comment that a fence on top of the berm would create less noise than a solid 6 foot wood fence but no specific evidence was presented. d. That the granting of the variance would not violate the Idaho Code. e. That no specific finding is made regarding whether the granting of the variance would nullify the interest and purpose of the ordinance however it is noted that the council has denied requests in the past to exceed the height limitations of the fence ordinance and has enforced the six foot limitation when fences have exceeded that height in the residential areas and the granting of the variance would be allowing a use or privilege not .; -- ii • • allowed to other developers subdivisions. and homeowners in other R-4 13. That it is concluded that while it would be costly to remove or lower the berm or to relocate the utilities that it was not shown that such would be a hardship on the Applicant. 14. That it was not shown that the denial of the variance would deprive either the Applicant or the lot owners of rights or privileges commonly enjoyed by persons, homes, or land similarly situated. 15. That it is concluded that the granting of the variance AMBROSE, FITZOERA~c & CR~KBTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Box 427 Meridlsn, Idaho 113842 Telephone 8884481 would. convey to the Applicant and to the homeowners a special privilege that is not available to other land and homeowners owning property in similar R-4 districts in the City of Meridian. This is the case since no other residential subdivision in the City has been allowed to have fences greater than six feet and the granting of the variance would allow a total fence height in excess of seven feet and possibly greater depending on where the measurement was taken. 16. That it is concluded that if there is any hardship suffered by the Applicant it has been the result of -the Applicant's own actions or failures to act. 17. That it is spcifically concluded that the Applicant has not met the requirements of the provisions controlling the granting of a variance and the findings required to grant a variance can not be made. "; • 18. That it is concluded that the safety of the small children in the subdivision is of greatest concern to this Council and it is hoped that the Applicant and the home owners can come to a satisfactory resolution of this fence situation. That it is hoped that such a resolution would be either the removal of the berm and the placement of a six foot fence in its place or the placement of a six foot fence on the property line of the lots and the Franklin Road right-of-way line. That such a resolution would be preferable to this Council but no requirement can be made as to such as it it not an issue before this Council in this variance request. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: ' CouncilmanMorrow Voted ~~ Councilman Giesler Voted%~ Councilman Myers Voted Councilman Tolsma Voted ~' MayorRingsford (TieBreaker) Voted APPROVED: ~~~ DISAPPROVED: nMeROS~, FITZC;eRaw &CROOKSTON Attomeya and Counaetoro P.O. eoz427 Meridian, Idaho 83842 Telephotre 88&4481 • • fMessur~, Bates ANTHONY J. MESSURI, SR., C.P.A. V ~bbons ALVIN K. BATES, (RETIEED) CerNf/Bd pybl/CAceountrint.4 CRANT E. GIBBONS, C.P.A. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1803 ELLIS AVENUE, CALDWELL, IDAHO 83605 (208) 459-4649/336-5872 December 21, 1988 The Honorable Mayor and Council City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho TERRY L. SCOTT, C.P.A. JOHN P. DEAN, C.P.A. We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide for the City of Meridian for the year ended September 30, 1989 We will audit the general purpose financial statements of the City of Meridian as of and for the year ended September 30, 1989 Also, we will include in your report the following supplemental information that will be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the general purpose financial statements. 1. 2. 3. Operations in Tax Rolls Our audit will be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and will include tests of the accounting records of the City of Meridian and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express an unqualified opinion that your financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. If our opinion is other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and banks. We will request written representations from your attorney as part of our engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we -1- MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS IDAHO SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS • • will also request certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters. An audit is based primarily on the selective testing of accounting records and related data; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. Because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including fraud or defalcations,. may exist and not be detected by us. We will advise you, however, of any matters of that nature that come to our attention. We understand that you will provide us with the basic information required for our audit and that you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. We will advise you about appropriate accounting principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of your financial statements, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with you. This responsibility includes the maintenance of adequate records and related controls, the selection and application of accounting principles, and the safeguarding of assets. We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will locate any invoices selected by us for testing. Our audit is not specifically designed and cannot be relied on to disclose material weaknesses in accounting controls. However, during the audit, if we become aware of such material weaknesses in the internal control structure or ways that we believe management practices can be improved, we will communicate them to you in a separate letter. We expect to begin our audit within 30 days after notification that the records are ready to audit and to issue our report no later than g0 days after the start of our field work. Our fees for these services will be based on the actual time spent at our standard hourly rates, plus other out-of-pocket costs such as report production, typing, postage, etc. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. Based on our preliminary estimates, the fee should not exceed $ 4.000 This estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs. -2- MESSURI, BATES & GIBBONS CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Our audits are warranted to be accepted under quality control reviews and in the event that audits are determined to be defective they will be made whole at no additional cost. please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Meridian and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, Very truly yours, SSURI, BATES & GIBB NS Certified Public Accountants RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Meridian l l$ Date May r City of ~e r ~ N ~ ~'°~ Idaho erk -3- MESSURI, BATES & GIBBONS • ~~ • MERIDIAN Phone (208)888-3999 December 2, 1988 City of Meridian 33 E Idaho Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Sanitary Service P.O. Box 828 Meridtan~ Idaho 83842 Gentlemen, it has been two years since negotiations for our last cost of living rate increase. Sanitary Service wishes to open negotiations at this time. A copy of our 1987 tax returns can be made available for your information. Our request would be as follows: Residential: $5.15 per month, unlimited cans 1 time a week Senior Citizens: $4.15 per month, unlimited cans 1 time a week Commercial: $5.15 per month, 1 can limit Construction and uncompacted drop-off boxes: $4.00 per yard Compacted drop-off boxes: $5.00 per yard Dumpster 1 pick-up 2 pick-ups 3 pick-ups 4 pick-ups 5 pick-ups 6 pick-t; size per week per week per week per week per week per wee 1 yd 22.00 33.00 42.00 52.50 63.00 73.OC 1~ yd 28.00 43.00 59.00 74.00 90.50 106.SC 2 yd 32.00 48.00 66.00 84.00 101.50 119.OC 3 yd 40.00 66.00 X2.00 118.00 144.00 170.OC 4 yd 60.00 107.00 154.00 201.00 248.00 296.OC 6 yd 73.00 126.50 180.00 233.50 287.00 341.OC Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, -~~'~ 1' ~q'`" Mohammad Alidjani President/Owner MA:ah cc: Councilman Ron Tolsma Councilman J. E. Myers Councilman Bob Geisler Councilman Walt Morrow ' City Clerk Jack Niemann n LJ Phone (208)888-3899 Expenses MERIDIAN Sanitary Service P & L STATEMENT 1-1-88 through 12-31-88 P.O. Box 626 Meridian Idaho 83642 Payroll & Labor 91,593.32 Advertise & promo 281.00 Donations 970.00 Landfill charges 21,506.80 Charge card 1,997.84 Insurance 17,519.12 Interest 2,115.71 Fees (city collection, accounting) 16,585.44 Truck maintenance, repair, oil, hydraulic 49,083.18 Miscellaneous 7,645.49 Office Supplies 525.47 Officer's Salary 15,538.32 Tax deposits 21,750.37 Rent 36,000.00 Shop Maintenance & Repair 1,396.20 Subscriptions & dues 434.72 Truck taxes & licenses 2,170.24 Telephone 1,244.89 Truck fuel 21,535.52 Utilities 1,487.16 Employee Garnishment 1,696.91 New truck payments 7,293.54 TOTAL EXPENSES $320,371.4 Revenue City Collection 316,003.51 Other collection 4,151.93 TOTAL REVENUE $320,155.44 •