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
•