1993 12-14•
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993:
(APPROVED)
l: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY
ENGINEER FOR VALERI HEIGHTS BY VICKI WELKER:
(APPROVED)
2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST
BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: (TABLED UNTIL
JANUARY 11, 1994)
3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION
D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING:
(PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY
GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES:
(PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY
GOLDSMITH CHARTER: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSON AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING:
(PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY
LESLIE PALMER: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT PRESENTATION
OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993:
~1L11leGCi 1: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY
ENGINEER FOR VALERI H IGHTS BY VICKI WELKER:
-f~(2.LC//,f/h~t-~ ~' 1CofLCR~ ~"eCEI L~C.~
2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIO S OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST
sY~~o~~~lL~ ~-e~vN~~ E SZ-~,..~.:~ ~1dP~e%p~~a~ea.
3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION
D.J. INVEST ENTS AND BRIGGS E GINEERING:
~or~o-~z d~~,~~ o~~a~fs ~ ~~2
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQU T FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY
GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES:
5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY
GOLDSMITH CHARTER:
6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSON AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING:
7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY
LESLIE PALMER:
8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT PRESENTATION
OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION:
~~~~!' ~2 -~~~~ ~
--
~~Ii~~~f' - c`~f r.~eG2~ liJ/~'e ~-re e~i~-rJ
_,_~~- ~ _~r _ _
- - - __
~~ ~-
~~J- ~ f ~2vr~~~~c
~~ ~ - -
_. - -.
. C~~,_ d ~' }o ~i fig? e~~-c'~~ ~_-~~~ ~"(~ c'/
. _ __ _ ~~ _~,tizu~ w
- --- - -
,.
~';~ __
-- -- -
~- ~.- _ -
--
2 ~~~ ~ C~c~{~~cU~
~~`~
- __ _ _ ~.
-- ter-
~~_
___
'~~~~ ~
~(/~- ~~_
_~S
_ l`~~? - -
- ~ __t ---- __
~~~~~~~ ~
~~ ~
- - - - --yam _~~----
~ ~~y~-
~~ ___
_. _-
---
_ _ __-
-
- - _ ___
_ -,
__ -- --
;ice- ------------- --
---- --
----
~!
_.
_ -- ~ -
~~
a-
-
_-
-ar --__ __ _ _ _ _ -- - -------- -
.~ ___ ~ -
,~_ - _--_
---
-- --
C G~-~~ y"
,~
---- ~ -
~ - ~ .;
--
~~~v~:
_ ~,~
~~~
RIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING __ _ -__. DECEMBER 14. 1993
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson:
Members Present: Charles Rountree, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer, Moe
Alidjani:
Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Gary
Smith, Clifford D. Babbitt, Frank W. Stoppello, John S. Shipley,
J. G. McDermot, Lydia Aguire, Raleigh Hawe, Ira Van Elg, Dave
Roylance, Marty Goldsmith:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993:
Johnson: You all have copies of the minutes and have read them are
there any additions, corrections or deletions? We have a motion
and a second to approve the minutes, there is a minor correction
necessary on page nineteen, second paragraph, additions should be
conditions under my comments there. That is the only thing of any
substance that needs to be corrected. All in favor of approving
the minutes with that one correction? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY ENGINEER FOR
VALERI HEIGHTS BY VICKI WELKER:
Johnson: It is my understanding we did not receive the revised
Preliminary Plat so we can't act on this. Is that correct for the
record? Any comments, questions?
Rountree: Do you need another motion to table? Mr. chairman I
make a motion we table that item until the next scheduled meeting.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table item #1 until our next
regularly scheduled meeting which will be in January, all in favor?
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE
REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE:
Johnson: What is your pleasure?
Rountree: Well we had some need for discussion, we don't have the
Findings of Fact at this time.
Johnson: That's right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 2
Rountree: The concerns I had with this particular item are
identified in the minutes, but the establishment of the precedence
of potential of strip development starting to go out Meridian Road
with this CG zoning at that location. Two commercial
establishments and an unknown use of residency with this zoning
could very well go to a commercial use as well. It is inconsistent
with our current plan I believe and definitely not consistent with
our proposed Comp Plan. If you want Mr. Forrey to speak to some of
those issues.
Johnson: Before we get to Mr. Forrey, does anyone else have any
comments?
Shearer: Every project that we have and we have a public hearing
on we get the negative side of everything, everybody is against all
these projects. This particular project is in a mixed use zone
which I would say a commercial project fits in good mixed use zone.
The property completing surrounding it or almost completely
surrounding the proposed property is owned by the same owner so if
there is any lowering of land values it will be the same owner that
will suffer those. I think that maybe government intervention is
a little bit to heavy in this. I hope that these people want to do
something with their land, and I think its their land and as long
as its not damaging someone else I think that we should grant it
and that is my feeling. And as far as strip zoning, everyone of
these projects that we have put together is going to have to stand
on its own merit because we approved this one is no sign that we
will approve something else. This is zoned a mixed use, or set up
in the Comp Plan as a mixed use.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Shearer. Anyone else have any comments,
Mr. Hepper?
Hepper: Well I'm a little bit concerned about the CG also. I
think the purpose the Planning and Zoning is to establish good
planning. I'm not 100$ sure that this falls into that category.
I don't have any problems with their proposed use of a bookstore,
I think that is fairly non-obtrusive, they are not going to be
causing any problems, but is does set a precedent out in the area
for CG. I'm worried about the CG, I'd like to.
Shearer: That is mixed use, CG
Hepper: Yes, but it also allows some fairly heavy commercial, so
I'd like to maybe hear some other opinions on it.
Johnson: Moe
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 3
Alidjani: I do have a problem with the CG zoning also. I believe
Mr. Shearer indicated the individual owns all the land but that is
true today and tomorrow and 5 years from now, but that might not
be true 10-15 years from now and the conflict of that problem is
going to exist at a different ownership some time in the future.
So I will be against the CG zoning.
Johnson: Okay, am I reading this that you feel this needs more
study more input? Would you like to have some comments from our
Planning Director at this point? Do you have anything you'd like
to add to this Wayne?
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. During
the Comprehensive Plan public hearings this was one area where
citizen input asked the Commission to expand the mixed use
designation. I think Mr. Raleigh Hawe brought that to the public
testimony, that he felt it would be appropriate to extend that
farther north than just right behind Albertson's. So the
Comprehensive Plan does include this area in the mixed use land
development designation. Perhaps the CN, commercial neighborhood
zone, would be more appropriate. I think the commercial
neighborhood would still allow the bookstore and what the owner is
intending to do with the property, but if it ever sold it would
place some limitations and remove maybe the negative connotation of
commercial general. Maybe CN would be, if the applicant is
willing, and there is also the possibility of limited office, in
some cases some retail establishments can be operated in the
limited office with little more restrictions but it does give some
flexibility. So maybe the issue here is CG maybe the neighborhood
type commercial would fit better with the mixed use plan
designation in the Comp Plan. That is about the only I can offer
Mr. Chairman.
Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone have any
questions of Mr. Forrey on this issue? Mr. Crookston
Crookston: The concern that maybe leading this situation is I
think the proposed Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a
mixed use area but the proposed plan is proposed it is not active
at this juncture. The current Comprehensive Plan doesn't indicate
that this area is to be a mixed use are. The other concern that I
heard when I discussed this matter with the commission was having
the entire property zoned CG when the use is proposed were a
bookstore which make it into the CG but the Sciscoe's were going to
use or proposed to use a house as a residence and that was not in
line with the CG zoning and if the City ultimately zoned it CG the
house can be used as a house for a day or 5 years and then can be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 4
converted to any other use, any other commercial use. I'm not sure
that the CG zoning itself is appropriate to place a residence into
that zoning because our Ordinances now are not a step, not
inclusive of everything below it in that zone. Just because
commercial is allowed does not mean that residential is allowed in
that zone. That was just the comments that I heard in discussing
the matter of the Findings of Fact.
Shearer: Would a CN allow that?
Crookston: No
Johnson: Wayne, briefly, would address the reason you did not
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law then.
Crookston: The reason was there was a feeling that this particular
application and the entire area needed to be discussed further to
see if that what the commission wanted to do not only with this
application but in that area since there was some feeling that this
tended or would tend to lead to strip commercial down Meridian Road
and there is also the requirement in the proposed plan about the
landscaping necessary along Meridian Road or into any entrances
into the City.
Johnson: When you say the feeling you are talking about the
feeling of the commissioners? Okay, for the record. I appreciate
that, thank you. I would suggest that the call on this is probably
to table this for further study at this point, unless someone else
has another suggestion.
Rountree: Would that entail the City Planner to evaluate the
potential CG, CN and maybe Limited Office use.
Johnson: It could include anything in there you want it to
include.
Rountree: Are we talking about that in terms of a study or are you
wanting us to sit down and look at it? Do you want a motion?
Johnson: I want a motion that makes you happy, whatever makes you
happy. I think we don't have any common ground, we don't have a
lot of common ground here other than things that are negative.
Probably the best thing we should do at this time is to look at it
further and involve Wayne Forrey.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we direct the City
Planner to evaluate the requested zoning change further with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 5
respect to the CG, CN or office space zoning categories and provide
the commission with an evaluation of the potential effects how they
relate to the existing Comp Plan and potential problems that might
result with the future Comp Plan and present a recommendation to
the commission next meeting.
Johnson: That was a motion.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion on the floor and a second, so stated all
in favor of that motion then? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Wayne would you be willing to provide us with a short
written document on those items that Mr. Rountree wanted addressed,
thank you.
ITEM ~f3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION BY D.J.
INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING:
Johnson: This is a public hearing, I'll now open the public
hearing is there a representative from the applicant that would
like to come forward, or the applicant himself and address the
commission. You need to be sworn by the City attorney please.
Ira Van Elg, 2408 Squire Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Van Elg: Thank you, I'm here to represent D.J. Investments on
behalf of King Street Station. This is a unique application for
Meridian. You probably can't see this picture, many of you may
have seen it as you were coming up to your chairs. We do have a
rendering of the proposed subdivision. This subdivision involves
the development of an Old Town Section of Meridian zoned OT, which
encourages a variety mix of uses including medium to high density
residential development. This application has a proposal that
contains 20 townhouse type units, they come in clusters of 4.
There have been since we met and submitted the application we have
met with the Highway District and drawn up some modifications to
the plan to accommodate the Highway District requirements. As you
can see one of the requirements from the Highway District was that
William Street not be connected to Meridian Road, so we have tried
to accommodate that. We have connected Williams Street to the
project as a secondary access. The improved service will be 24
feet wide there. The other requirement or request that the Highway
District had was that we taper and widen Meridian Road to allow for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 6
additional right of way acquisition. Starting at block 3 of that,
near the center of the development there. That has been tapered to
a 45 foot wide from centerline to the property line at King street,
right there at the corner. As far as any other requests we'd
certainly comply with the requirements of the Ada County Highway
District as far as the installation of curb/gutter/sidewalk as
required, improvements along King Street and dedication of any
right of way. I might address one particular point of interest on
this application, that is that because of the nature of this
townhouse type development, these lots are intended to be sold as
individual lots which would increase the tax base as compared to an
apartment complex type development, but because they are being sold
as individual lots there is a sideyard setback requirement that has
to be met and we have submitted a variance application and it
should be heard by the Council and it should tag this application
when it reaches the Council. Meridian's Ordinances really doesn't
address such development, its a unique nature. I believe it will
be an asset to the community and certainly does provide a mix use
and a variety of housing that Meridian doesn't have at this point,
especially where it is encouraged in the Old Town area. In
response of some of the conditions of approval by Mr. Smith, the
City Engineer, item #8, I believe you have those in your staff
packages, addresses the irrigation along the east side of Meridian
Road. We understand his concern and that ditch will be piped. As
far as lighting along the interior parking areas, that will also be
addressed. One other item that you might note ont he site plan is
that there is a couple of parking spaces on your original site
plans, you'll notice that where Williams Street now comes through
there were I believe 3 parking spaces there but because we've
connected Williams Street to the development now as a secondary
access those 3 parking spaces were eliminated. We therefore, to
comply with the parking requirements 40 parking spaces we had to
increase that center bay of parking along that access drive way.
And we gained one additional parking space, we do meet the parking
requirements. The only that we would ask is that you accept the,
there are 2 additional compact spaces that should be addressed and
accepted in this process. That basically concludes my comments,
I'm certainly open to any questions that you might have at this
point.
Johnson: Okay, thank you. I'm sure we will have some. Any
questions of the representative at this point?
Shearer: Yes, I was wondering if he had seen the comments from
Nancy Taylor.
Van Elg: I haven't.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 7
Johnson: Nancy Taylor is filling in for Wayne Forrey on this
because Wayne has a conflict on this. He owns property near that
area. Is there anything in there you want to ask him about, do you
want to give him a copy? I know you had a reason for asking that.
Shearer: Well, I think maybe he should have a look through there
and see if there is anything in there that concerns him and should
be ironed out at this time.
Van Elg: Could I just have time to sit down and maybe you could
proceed while I review this?
Johnson: Yes, we will call you back. This is a public hearing
anyone else from the public like to come forward and address the
commission on this application? Everyone is here for a different
reason, okay your time is up.
Unknown: I have a letter here from the notice of the hearing and
I'd like for someone to read that to see how it describes that
property.
Johnson: The description here. okay, apparently Mr. Berg is aware
of the error in here, do you want to explain that for the record.
Berg: I don't know what the error is.
Johnson: Well, we can clarify that right now I think. The number
of units is that what you are concerned about?
Unknown: Well, yes.
Johnson: Because it is confusing right, it says 5 four-plexes and
then it says 25 single-family dwelling lots, is that the conflict
that you are concerned about? Do you want to address that?
Van Elg: There are 20 dwelling lots in the application, the
remaining lots would all be held in common area. Undivided common
interest.
Johnson: So, this should have read 20 lots, rather than 25. I
hope that answers your question so we got a D for that. Anything
there that you would like to comment on?
Van Elq: I don't have any particular concerns.
Shearer: I didn't have any particular concerns with that its just
that it hit my box after 4:00 this afternoon, so I figured he
hadn't seen it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 8
Johnson: Thank you
Van Elg: Would you like this back?
Shearer: No, you can keep it.
Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to
come forward on this?
Rountree: I had a question about the conversation with ACHD about
the taper on lot, well I show lot 1 block 1 to King Street 245 Feet
from 40 feet from centerline, I know we have a representative from
ACHD today. I'll pose this question, did they indicate a problem
from the intersection of Meridian Road and Franklin with the 40
foot from centerline right of way that they would be restricted to
in this area if they ever had to do any intersection improvements?
Van Elq: Perhaps Mr. Sale could address that.
Johnson: Yes, Larry we need to get you sworn and have you speak
into the microphone please.
Larry Sale, ACRD 318 E 37th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney
Sale: Mr. chairman, Mr. Rountree, frankly we would prefer to have
45 feet of right of way for the future improvements of Meridian
road because it is identified as an arterial in your plan which is
a change of designation of what we have been working with in the
past. However, there is a fairly substantial building located
immediately south of this project the wall of which is situated 40
feet from the center line on Meridian Road as near as we can scale
from the drawing. Based on that building and our expectation that
it may be easier to go west if we need more than 80 feet of right
of way it may be easier to go west with the road section than to
acquire part of that building in the future. We decided continue
the 40 feet acquisition from Franklin all the way north to the next
street which is King Street with that rationalization. Does that
answer your question?
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Sale. Do you have any other questions?
Hepper: Nancy Taylor, work with City #3 there, it says why does
the plan not include covered parking or RV parking. Would you like
to address that question.
Van Elg: They are town home lots, the lot is very limited by
several things. It is limited by the access to Meridian Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 9
and ACRD not wanting access to Meridian Road, its limited by the
overhead power lines that run through there and a prescriptive
easement that is associated with that power line. If we are going
to get the units in we're simply not going to be able to fit in the
covered parking and meet all the setback requirements for these
units. I don't believe that in units of this, that RV parking may
be that big of an issue and I certainly believe that parking on
Meridian Road or King Street will be that big of a problem. I
certainly wouldn't want to park my RV there on Meridian Road or
King Street.
Hepper: Since we don't have any elevations or floor plans or
anything like that, is this rendering that you have there is that
an actual rendering or is that just something similar.
Van Elg: No, that is an actual rendering. We do have some other
renderings, some sketches if you would like to look at those and
floor plans I do have those in my file.
Hepper: Yes, I would like to know basically what it is you are
proposing. I'm more concerned with the elevations than the actual
floor plan.
Van Elg: As you can see the elevations are very similar, oh the
floorplans.
Hepper: No, I'm more concerned with the elevations.
Van Elg: There is the front and rear elevation of each structure,
you can see they are very similar. These are individual lots, the
City Ordinance requires a 2 car garage per single family home, are
these to be sold as a single family residence, is he going to need
a variance?
Johnson: Yes, our Ordinance calls for 2 car garages minimum on
single family, so that is what these are, that is what those have
to be, ask Wayne that would require a variance wouldn't it?
Crookston: Yes.
Johnson: That would be at the Council level if they so desire.
Hepper: How about some landscaping, would you like to address
that?
Van Elg: There is landscaping that is going to be proposed along
King Street. And there will be landscaping where that piping
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 10
occurs along Meridian Road. The remaining acreage around the
individual pads will all be held in common ownership by and
landscaped by the homeowners association. That will all be
established in the covenants it will be presented to Mr. Crookston
for his review.
Hepper: Is there going to be any berms or fencing?
Van Elg: At this point I don't know that there gardens planned for
it.
Hepper: Is there any fencing?
Van Elg: Is there any fencing around there?
Unknown: There will be fencing on the east side and possible some
fencing on the west side.
Van Elg: So that can be official there will be fencing on the east
side and on the west side, excuse me possibly on the west side.
Johnson: Does anyone have any further questions?
Alidjani: I have one, nobody brought it up, I want to know if you
are aware of the Idaho Power and US West asked for l0 foot
easement?
Van Elg: We were under the impression that they were requiring a
15 foot prescriptive easement. And we can comply with that.
Johnson: Okay, thank you very much for your presentation. The
public hearing is still open is someone has changed their mind. If
not then I will close the public hearing, seeing no one hearing
nothing. What is your pleasure gentlemen? Findings of Fact? Our
typist is having a problem, so please try to use the mikes as much
as possible, some of it is not being picked up on tape.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we have Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared on the application for a
Conditional Use Permit.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City
Attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law all in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 11
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH
CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES:
Johnson: This is a public hearing, I will now open the public
hearing is there a representative of the applicant who would like
to come forward and address the commission? You need to be sworn.
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I'm Dave Roylance, a
Civil Engineer representing the applicant. This is a residential
development containing 74 lots. We propose central water, central
sewer and other standard utilities. All streets shall meet the
requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the City of
Meridian and be dedicated to the public. This is a phased
development and we have shown phase one of our project tonight.
May I answer any questions?
Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance?
Hepper: Is this an R-4 zone, is that what you are requesting?
Roylance: Yes
Shearer: I've got a question for our Attorney, do we need to
reverse the order of these. I would guess that this is not
adjacent to any city property until this other project is annexed,
is that true?
Crookston: I haven't looked at the contiguousness of either one of
them.
Roylance: If I might I believe that is correct, in order for
Sagehen to be annexed that Upland Meadows, which is the next
project on the agenda, would provide the annexation route.
Shearer: Do we need to switch our agenda, or does it make any
difference?
Crookston: No, only one, the one that you are not hearing now
simply needs to be annexed prior to this application.
Shearer: So it won't make any difference.
Johnson: And it could be a condition of your motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 12
Hepper: May I have Mr. Roylance circle the lots that have less
than an 80 foot frontage where the R-4 designation requires an 80
foot frontage.
Roylance: That has since been corrected, that was not necessarily
done by design when we do these, it sounds a little weak, but when
we do these by computer sometimes those lines don't come out as we
expect, but anyway that has since been corrected I'm aware of that.
Hepper: Does it change the overall number of lots?
Roylance: No it does not.
Hepper: So in other words we are still pretty much looking at the
same project but just a few variations of property lines?
Roylance: That is right, if the lots did change they would go down
and not up, but we don't anticipate the number of lots to change.
Rountree: Would you hold that up again, it might answer some of
the questions I had. So you have replatted those lots at the
entrance where (inaudible) which ever that, that is a different
plan than we have.
Roylance: It is not substantially different, but none the less it
is different and we have done that to try to address some of the
concerns. Also, here in the following project, which is right
across the street here, we were requested by ACHD to align the
streets of both projects with each other even though we are not
hearing that project tonight that also did dictate a change on this
project as far as the impact to the City as far as the issues. I
wouldn't think that would substantially change but we did make
minor modifications to bring this in compliance with the City code
and the requirements of ACHD.
Rountree: Did you have that discussion with ACRD with respect to
their concerns about traffic studies and that sort of thing?
Roylance: Yes we have. In fact they have requested a traffic
study and we have authorized Gary Funkhouser and his
representatives and it should be completed December 21.
Johnson: With the (inaudible) in our decision making process, when
that is done, when you do a revision in the eleventh hour perhaps
you could give us a copy of that so we would have something to look
at it at our desk or in our packets. Because we are looking at
something totally different. Fortunately, Charlie picked up on
that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 13
Roylance: I apologize for that, I realize it is not good form to
submit one project and then bring in another. It was done in the
spirit of trying to make things form and not an attempt to pull a
fast one, but I do appreciate your concerns.
Johnson: There have also been canine that have graduated from
college.
Hepper: What about fencing or berms, landscaping, anything up
front along the street there.
Roylance: We intend to berm along the street, you can see the
landscape lot, I hope its on your plat is on this plat.
Hepper: No it isn't
Roylance: I see, we do intend to provide a berm along Locust Grove
and we do intend to fence the perimeter of the project, we may not
fence the phase line, but we do intend to fence the perimeter. We
also intend to fence along the canal through here, along the Nine
Mile Canal.
Hepper: Would that be a metal fence along the ditch there.
Roylance: I had envisioned a cedar wood fence, if somebody
required a chain link fence then that would be considered, it isn't
what I envisioned.
Hepper: Wasn't there a note in our packet that here just recently
the City Council, maybe Wayne knows better, doesn't like the wood
fences because people burn the weeds and the fences go along with
them.
Forrey: The Irrigation District
Hepper: Okay, the Irrigation District, I knew there was someone
who made a comment about it. I think the Irrigation District would
prefer to have chain link.
Roylance: Now that you mention that I'm aware of it, we would
probably like to use chain link and slats for the appearance, but
they may object to that.
Johnson: Any further questions for Mr. Roylance?
Alidjani: I've got a question, any comments regarding the 22 items
that Gary has conditioned you upon?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 14
Roylance: There is nothing on Gary's list that I find out of the
ordinary that we cannot do or have not done. I can explain some of
those that maybe I deemed to be important if I miss something you
would like to hear I'd be happy to respond to it. Regarding item
#1, we did submit a legal description for annexation for only phase
one of our project and as I read condition #1 it says submit a
legal description prepared by a registered land surveyor for
annexation and zoning of the whole piece of property. That causes
a small problem for us, and the reason we didn't do that is because
this is a phased purchase and Marty Goldsmith the owner has only
entered into an agreement at this time to purchase phase 1 of the
project. So that is what we would like submit and get annexed, as
I understand it the seller has asked that he not annex other pieces
until he issues and executes phase 1 of the purchase. That is the
reason we have shown only what we have shown and that is the reason
the description describes just phase 1 of our project.
Alidjani: How about phase 2, 3, if you have a problem if you don't
that is fine.
Roylance: No, these are all doable things. The answer to #2 is
the same as #1. We do have a very conceptual layout for the total
property we'd be happy to share that with you but since we were
asking for consideration of phase 1 that is really at this point
all I have turned in. We do have a concept plan for the entire
project for this one and the one you will hear in a minute and I
can submit that to Gary. Regarding the well lot, we can deal with
that issue, that is item #3. We have corrected those deficiencies
that are suggested here and if we have not we will. Would you like
me to go down right through all of these?
Johnson: Well, I'd like to hear your answer for #7 and 9 which are
basically just questions.
Roylance: Okay, regarding 7, more than a 100 lots will ultimately
take access to Locust Grove Road, what other access is planned. We
have arbitrailly shown at least one stub out of the property here
and our conceptual plan over here shows another stub out to this
location and one here. At this point those are arbitrary and we
get the traffic study and when Ada County Highway District has
fully read that study I'm quite sure they will suggest where
certain access points should stubbed at the perimeter and we will
do that. Right now I'm aware that it is very likely to be a
requirement and we have shown it here and on this part we have
shown another accesses here and one in this location, but I think
that will be ironed out when the traffic study is complete and
evaluated by ACHD. Mr. Johnson, was #9 the other one you wanted
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 15
me to discuses?
Johnson: Yes
Roylance: Regarding the Nine Mile Drain, I'm not sure the exact
status of that, what we would like to do, if this conforms with
city requirements, is fence it at the easement or the right of way,
that is fence it at this location and fence it at this location.
Which would be the right of way lines and not t he it and let it go
at that. That is what we would like to do, that is what we have
done in the past in similar projects and we hope that is
affordable.
Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Roylance?
Hepper: I had a question on pressurized irrigation system, you
said individual lot irrigation (end of tape)
Roylance: Regarding that pressurized irrigation system, I don't
know that we have made that decision. As I understand it I think
the City Ordinance requires we address it in some fashion or
another. If we have adequate surface water rights and if they are
usable for a central system, that is some times if they are on a
rotation schedule it just isn't practical to develop an on site
system. If we can do that it would be our preference to provide an
on site system, if we cannot do that for the reasons I said or
other reasons then we would like to bond for that item. And we
really haven't made a decision on that yet.
Hepper: And right now as it stands you can pay a fee to the City
for a Well development or do pressurized irrigation system, I think
they are in the process of changing that, aren't they?
Johnson: Yes, that is my understanding that they are.
Hepper: But, at this moment it hasn't changed.
Roylance: I think it might be the City's preference to get these
facilities and I think that would be ours, if things work out and
if they don't work our we will have to bond for them.
Johnson: Okay, well thank you very much. City Engineer Smith is
there anything you would like to address at this time on this
application? You had several comments and I'm just hoping that you
got satisfaction.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I haven't had a chance to
talk to Dave about my comments. I will need to have each one of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 16
them addressed and I'm confident that Dave will be in touch with me
and we'll get answers to each of my concerns.
Johnson: Thank you Gary. Anything from ACRD at this point, Larry
Sale?
Sale: Do I need to be sworn again?
Larry Sale, ACHD, 318 E 37th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Sale: Our recommendation to the City was that the approval of a
Preliminary Plat of this project and the next project be deferred
until we had completed our review and accepted a traffic study of
the area. The question of the annexation is one which you can
proceed with if you desire, we again would request that you defer
action on the Preliminary plat. The Chairman's question about the
number of lots on the single access is a case in point. WE can
allow more than 100 units to gain access to the arterial system by
one route if it is a collector route, but if that is a collector
route than we don't want those lots fronting on it what is shown on
the revised layout here tonight. So we anticipate some significant
changes to the layout as a result of our findings and I would
recommend that you defer action at this time on the Preliminary
plats.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Sale?
Alidjani: Mr. Sale you are recommending that we defer the timing,
do you have a time table for when the study will be done?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Alidjani, the applicants representative
indicated that the traffic study will be submitted we are able to
complete our review and submit our request for additional
information or changes to that traffic study in about 2 weeks we
try to turn them around. We try to turn them around in 10 working
days. Usually then they are, as I say in this case I anticipate
some changes to the Preliminary Plat so that might cause the
applicant some additional delay while his consultant is working on
both the corrections to the traffic study assuming there are some
and the changes to the preliminary plat.
Rountree: Mr. Sale, what is the ACHD's guide on the number of lots
to be served by a single access without a collector street?
Sale: We allow up to 100 on a local street access, above that
obviously that is an arbitrary number above that we require either
a collector or 2 local street accesses. We want the consultant for
the traffic study to meet with us prior to beginning his effort
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 17
because we want him to look at and we would like him also to meet
with the City Engineer so that he has an idea of that amount of
land that can be served in this sewer drainage basin because that
likely will closely resemble the transportation drainage basin that
is the area within this square mile that we would expect to be
served off this collector or this access. If it looks like there
is an adequate opportunity to access the rest of the square mile
with stub street out of this project and other collectors off of
either Overland or Locust Grove or other arterials than that pose
kinds of things help us answer Mr. Rountree's question a little
more.
Johnson; Okay, thank you very much Mr. Sale. This is a public
hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the commission
at this time on this application? Yes mam, you need to be sworn as
well.
Lydia Aguirre, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney.
Aguirre: Commissioners I wanted to present my case and my concerns
to you about the subdivision that is going in. First of all on the
plat that was proposed, it is incorrect and so if I could show you
this I could show you where I am in relationship to this whole
subdivision. There is a division here, here is the seller of the
property his property is here and there is another residential area
of 2 acres in this small plot and I am here, I have 3 acres, so I
am technically land locked between this residence and myself.
South Locust Grove, I don't extend into South Locust Grove, the
small dirt road that leads into my residential property.
Alidjani: I'm sorry, how do you get in right now according to this
map.
Aguirre: There is a small dirt road right here and that is how I
get in.
Shearer: That is your property?
Johnson: It is not an easement, its your property?
Aguirre: Yes, I have a concern with the subdivision because I am
technically land-locked, I'm not sure what they are proposing. I'm
backed up by that subdivision on 2 sides, one side of me where the
road is and on the back side. I would like to work with the
developer or at least have some more information on what kind of
public access I can have and I would like to keep my property so
that I'm able to develop it some future date as well. I don't know
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 18
whether that means stubbing a road in towards my area from that
development I'm not quite sure how that could work. I just want to
make sure the property I have is fronted correctly, aesthically,
I'm looking for cedar fences for my font yard, and I also would
like to have access to some kind of a stubbing if I do want to
develop it at some future date that it is there and accessible.
Johnson: Have you had any discussion with the developer or his
representative up to now?
Aguirre: I have not.
Alidjani: I have a question, approximately how many feet of you
easement of the road that you own?
Aguirre: I think it is about 30 feet, 30 or 31 feet. It is a
small dirt road, one lane, and that provides access for me to get
onto South Locust road and that is the only access I have to a
public road.
Alidjani: When you purchased that property, were you happy with
that road at the present time?
Aguirre: I was, I also purchased this property only 3 months ago
with the understanding that there was not going to be any
subdividing going on because of the zoning, which is probably a
typical comment. The thing I'm concerned about, when I purchased
this property, I moved from Boise and the thing I'm concerned about
is I moved there for the quality of life the privacy that it
provided for me. Zoning this piece of land R-4 concerns me a
little bit, I'd like to see the zoning to be if they were 5 acre
plats of 10 acre plats that would make me and my neighbors happier.
The quality of life out there right now, there is a lot of privacy,
wildlife, those are the kinds of things that people are moving out
to that area to have, and I just think to be consistent with the
planning that is going on, R-4 is a pretty densely populated
subdivision for that area.
Johnson: Okay, is that all you have to present?
Aguirre: Those are my concerns.
Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public like to
address the commission? Yes sir, please come forward and be sworn.
John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 19
Shipley: I'm also one of Lydia's neighbors. I have approximately
5 acres it will be right adjacent to, its right in front of where
the canal, the Eight Mile Lateral crosses there.
Johnson: Can you picture where that is Commissioners? Thank you
Shipley: The McDermot property is directly across the road from me
which is the other subdivision.
Johnson: Could you point that out please Wayne on the overhead?
Shipley: I would also like to work with the subdivider and I
realize that more taxes are going to be derived off of one lot than
the entire 50 acres that is proposed to be subdivided. I though
maybe my piece of property could be an RV storage or something like
that and its kid of a situation if there are going to be all these
houses and all these people out there that would be an advantage to
them to have a place close to home where they could keep their
stuff and still not be so far away that they couldn't come and load
it up to go camping on the weekends and things like that. I
thought that it would be a proper proposal to address right now and
I also was a little concerned about future conflicts with kids,
dogs, irrigation water. Those are things that occur fairly
frequently and the more people you get the more problem there is.
I though that the proposal to put in pressurized irrigation was a
really good proposal because that settle a lot of those problems
right off the bat and when you have people sharing water and times
and some people have to get up in the middle of the night to change
water and those kind of things it is a regular hassle and people
that are moving out there won't know anything about those types of
situations. I have lived there for 20 years I really know what I
am talking about. I becomes a real hassle and for the next 2 or 3
years I'll continually run cattle and 2 don't want somebody's dogs
coming over and chasing them through the fence and what not and
obviously I won't be able to shoot them anymore. That is all I
have to say..
Johnson: Thank you very much. Wayne would you point out Lydia's
property on there for me? Thank you that is where I though it was,
the land locked situation. It is only 3 acres so it has to be that
area. I didn't ask, are there any questions of the gentleman that
came forward to testify? Apparently not, anyone else from the
public like to come forward, yes sir same procedure.
Clifford Babbitt, 11881 Amity, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Babbitt: I own the property the 6 acres between the 2 parties that
were just up here. And I am totally in favor of the subdivision,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 20
I would like to see the drainage ditch fenced through there on both
sides for protection of kids and what else.
Alidjani: Can you elaborate more about fixed
Babbitt: Fenced. One of my concerns is that my water and these
other parties drain water runs into the subdivision there. I take
it the subdivider will move the drainage pipe up the ditch there so
it will drain into the drainage ditch, because right now it drains
off of Gene's property there which is part of this subdivision
right now, and it needs to move up the ditch so it can drain and
that would be the most logical thing to do. And I had one thing
about the pressurized water, as he stated it is a terrible problem
to get these people up in the middle of the night, they go back to
bed they let the water run and flood people, it gets to be a
problem. If they do this, if you people do require it the drainage
out of my water ditch there and the rest of them there, only waters
a small section of this which would be the west side of that
drainage ditch and I wouldn't want the water for the whole
subdivision coming down my ditch trying to pressurize the whole
subdivision because that looks like water comes from another ditch
up above and that would take my water time away from me. Of course
the other thing like you said we do run cattle in there and they do
ball and when you bring new ones in the new ones ball for a little
while, and I want it on record that we were there long before the
subdivision was.
Alidjani: I have a question sir, as you were saying that wish them
to fence the ditch, is there any fencing at all around the present
ditch?
Babbitt: Just for cattle on our property there.
Alidjani: And you want him to fence that area
Babbitt: Well the 6 foot chain link fence along there, that
usually require they have in the past instead of enclosing the
ditch. And the other thing I was concerned about is the sewer, the
water comes down the side of Locust Grove there and I wanted to
make sure the sewer was going to be stubbed out on the ditch bank
there going south the property there. That would be right along
the ditch bank there the drainage ditch there and would be stubbed
out to the end of the property there, because there will be more
developments south of that property there will be more on up and
I'm sure the work department a\has already got that proposed but I
want to make that it is put int he record that it is stubbed out
that way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 21
Johnson: Okay, thank you very much any questions? Anyone else
from the public like to come forward, yes sir.
Frank Stoppello, 782 Arlington Drive, Eagle, was sworn by the
Attorney.
Johnson: For the record we have a letter in our packet from Mr.
Stoppello.
Stoppello: I just wanted to briefly address that letter. I would
generally be in favor of this project, I haven't seen the 20
conditions or the plat plan, but the only thing I was concerned
about, I kind of have a unique situation and of course everybody
says that, my access and I'll just show you my copy of this
proposed development, I own the 13 acres running along here, the
drainage ditch is my western boundary. My access goes down the
canal bank and down this access road. It is quite a long access
and one of the problems that will happen as I understand it is Mr.
Goldsmith's access will be right on Locust Grove very, very close
to my access. I too bought this for tranquility but it is obvious
that it is not going to be that and it is property that I too would
like to develop. My only request would be that there be stub into
my property and some coordination of an access whether we are
talking about a 100 units or 200 units and Mr. Goldsmith informed
that his second phase, if I'm wrong on this Marty you correct me,
proposed a stub into my property around this lot 18, my only
request that it be stubbed in as part of the first phase, and
obviously I would like to coordinate with ACRD and Marty and making
sure that 13 acres doesn't get land locked because of proper access
to Locust Grove under ACHD guidelines and rules and regulations.
That is all I have.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Stoppello? Thank you Frank I
appreciate it. Anyone else from the public? Would you like to
offer anything David?
Roylance: Several things, we understand the concerns of Ada County
Highway District and we don't object to their request. Regarding
land locking adjoining properties, I'm not aware of that situation
but if the land owners could contact me or our firm and our number
is 336-7390, we'll be happy to work with the adjoining property
owners and try to remedy any situation that we can. I would hope
in doing that, that we are not forced to take unreasonable steps to
remedy a situation that we did not create, on the other hand we
would be happy to work with the neighborhood and do what we can to
be compatible and be a good neighbor. That is it do you have any
questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 22
Johnson: I don't, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Roylance?
Hepper: Will the sewer line be coming up Locust Grove Road or
coming up the drain ditch?
Roylance: My understanding now it will be coming up Locust Grove
Road, is that correct Gary? That is what we are looking at, it may
not be the only option that is the one under study right now.
Hepper: Even though the drain ditch is lower and you can get
enough depth out on Locust Grove to drain on out to Locust Grove?
Roylance: We think so, we've been contact with Gary and have some
preliminary designs that are currently being reviewed, and the
think\g is we don't want to put the sewer in a location that would
lock out other properties.
Rountree: Would you be open to a (inaudible) as opposed to those
people who feel an impact or perceived impact based on your clients
action that you or your client take the effort and make the effort
to contact those adjoining property owners and try to resolve those
issues?
Roylance: Well if it all right with this commission and you I
would prefer they contact us. The point being I don't know exactly
what their issues, they do. If it is put on me I might contact 2
people not talk to the 3rd and not know what the issues,they stated
the issues, we are in the phone book we are easy to find if they
have a concern I would encourage them to contact me. I think we
could do a better job by working with the neighborhood if they
contact us.
Johnson: One of the concerns that comes up David, and I'm sure
you're aware of it, when we have public hearings like this the
public not being skilled in planning and development it does
require not require but in their minds they suggest, demand that
they be contacted when some development is going on. So we have as
a body endorsed the developer to extend as much as he can in that
direction so that we are kind of cutting off the path maybe some
complaints we have in the future, and I believe we addressed that
in the Comp Plan, have we Wayne?
Forrey: Yes we have
Johnson: That is a series of input sessions and of course the
number of hearings like this we get that all the time. We need to
do a better job as developers and as a City in letting the public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 23
know what is going on primarily because they are naive in that area
which understandably is so.
Roylance: In light of that I will do that. Those 2 people I heard
tonight, well I guess there was 3 i could get that from them
tonight you will have that. How do I make sure I don't
inadvertently leave somebody out?
Johnson: And I don't think anyone expects you to dot every I and
cross every T with respect to that but I think just making the
offer and making yourself available and how to get in touch with
you is all you can do. If I were the developer maybe I'd go around
adjoining property owners and talk to them about the development,
I don't know how feasible that is I'm not a developer but that is
something the public would like.
Roylance: Okay
Johnson: That is why I'm making this speech. Larry did you have
anything you wanted to add to Mr. Stoppello's comments at this
point?
Sale: Do I have to be sworn?
Sale: Mr. Chairman I've talked to Mr. Stoppello on the phone and
assured him that if he will contact us which he has we will
consider his request to provide access. We try to do that in all
locations to make sure all parcels have adequate access. I guess
did that answer your question?
Johnson: Yes, I appreciate your comment.
Alidjani: Larry, can I ask you a question please? How close those
entrances can be? The concern the woman had was their entrance or
exit the easement to Locust Grove would be quite close distance
wise to this subdivision.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Alidjani, we prefer a separation,
it kinds of depends on the level of activity of each entrance we
prefer a separation of 125 to 150 feet as a minimum along a major
street. That would emphasize our desire to make sure there was
another access provided to these properties so that they could give
up their driveways on Locust Grove.
Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else from the public
that would like to come forward at this time? Your up.
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 W State St, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 24
Goldsmith: In regards to Mr. Stoppello's questions, I had not
intended on stubbing out a street until later in the plans and it
was right where he indicated, but it was not planned on being done
right away.
Johnson: Was it in phase 1?
Goldsmith: Yes, we had worked with him on the location there. And
the distance is over 200 feet it is more like 250 or longer toward
these guys recorded easements, Mr. Stoppello has a recorded
easement as well as Lydia they are talking about there so the
distance between those streets is greater than required by ACRD.
Johnson: 250 feet approximately?
Goldsmith: More than. Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks Marty, is there anyone else? If not then I will
close the public hearing.
Aguirre: I do have a question on the 250 feet, I didn't realize it
was 250 feet, I thought it was less.
Johnson: Would you like to answer her question?
Sale: I'm sure I can, I think she is asking about the existing
situation.
Johnson: Your talking, is it really 250 feet, is that your
question, oh I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the
requirement. You want to know what the actual distance is, is that
your question. I don't think anybody can answer that here except
maybe Mr. Goldsmith, we certainly can't answer that.
Goldsmith: The entrance in question is here and your easement is
down here, and this distance along the back line of Mr. Babbitt's
property is 200 and then we would need to take into account the 20
foot berm and that 30 foot easement. There is 30 feet that has
been recorded in here. Anyway this 20 foot berm and this 200 and
whether you came from the center of this road or exactly where that
measurement is picked up. I do believe it is 200 and something and
not 250. Your road is right here correct? Okay, there is nothing
there taking your road is there?
Aguirre: But if you go 250 feet it would go down further to my
road, your 200 on Babbitt's property line and then the additional
would come down south of that wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 25
Goldsmith: I guess the only measurement I'm sure of is this 200
and it would actually matter whether you took into account this
berm here and whether you started from the center of this street or
not. So those are the only 3 measurements I have at this time.
Johnson: Okay, I did close the public hearing did I not?
Crookston: Yes
Johnson: What is your pleasure? Whatever we do we need to bear i
mind Mr. Sale's comments regarding the traffic study and address
the annexation.
Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for this project.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: it has been moved and seconded to have the City Attorney
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor?
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH
CHARTER:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is a representative of
the applicant of the applicant like to come forward at this time,
you need to be sworn.
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, you have probably
heard this pitch before but here we go again. This is a
residential development containing 77 lots. We propose central
sewer, central water and other standard utilities. All streets
will meet the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and
the City of Meridian and be dedicated to the public. May I answer
your questions?
Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance?
Shearer: Is this Comp Plan, this subdivision plan here is no
longer valid is it?
Roylance: That is correct, we have some preliminary discussions
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 26
with ACHD before we design these but they are preliminary and we
don't fault us or ACHD for realizing now that these needed
(inaudible) and as soon as we heard that we started the process of
amending it. I apologize if that causes you confusion, the one we
have here again is different than the one you have.
Shearer: Okay, so you're saying that Trumpeter Drive
Roylance: We moved the location of this to accommodate the request
of ACHD. I realize that isn't the one you have in your packet, and
I apologize for that.
Shearer: So this lot ends with the other subdivision.
Roylance: Once again the traffic study and the impacts will have
to be evaluated by ACRD.
Alidjani: Any problems with Gary's comments?
Roylance: No, no problem with any of those.
Johnson: Would you address 10 for the record?
Roylance: Yes, item #10 says why isn't the total parcel being
proposed for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat at this
time? What does the street alignment look like for the unplatted
area? And the answer to that is the same, this is a phased
development, and the purchase agreement is in 2 phases and we are
requesting annexation and preliminary plat approval on the phase
that Mr. Goldsmith has agreed to purchase. On the other hand we do
have a concept plan and a layout for the entire project and we
would be happy to share that with Gary and share that with you, but
that is the reason that we have shown just phase 1 of our project.
Hepper: Does any of this project back up to Meridian Greens?
Roylance: Yes it does. Right here is the point we catch.
Hepper: Oh, its just point to point not a whole property line.
Roylance: That is right, its this point here.
Johnson: Mr. Roylance, i need to point out that in our requirement
for a preliminary plat we do require a map of the entire area
scheduled for development, if the proposed subdivision is a portion
of a larger holding intended for subsequent development. So when
you have different phases your are supposed to bring to us a map
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 27
showing how everything interlocks and what the development is and
that has been missing with our applications we've had so its
something we need to make a point of requiring that when we know
that there is some contiguous development that is anticipated.
Roylance: Okay, I apologize for that, I was aware of the
requirement to identify contiguous parcels you own but probably
within my own lack of studying the Ordinance I wasn't aware that we
need to show a concept for the entire parcel. And I will do that
on future submittals and we do have that information and I will get
it to you right away.
Johnson: Any further questions of Mr. Roylance, Wayne do you have
your hand up, Wayne Crookston?
Crookston: Yes, Dave could you go to the map on the screen there
and just point out the Sagehen and Upland Meadows where each of
them are and how they connect?
Roylance: This is Locust Grove, this right here is Sagehen this
area here and Upland Meadows which is over here. I think this is
for a public park, this is a City map so I'm a little bit
disoriented.
Crookston: So your contiguousness is through a corner of Meridian
Greens Subdivision?
Roylance: This is the corner right here.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Roylance?
Hepper: I've got a couple of the same questions as before we need
to address the 80 foot frontage on these lots I assume the new plat
that you have does that.
Roylance: Yes it does
Hepper: How about landscaping and fencing along Locust Grove?
Roylance: We show individual lot that fronts along Locust Grove
that will be in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 feet wide and we
propose a berm and landscaping along this lot and that will be
owned i common by the homeowners association and maintained by
them.
Alidjani: No fence?
Roylance: I don't think we propose a fence at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 28
Hepper: That is all I have.
Johnson: Okay, thank you anyone else from the Commission? Thank
you David. This is a public hearing anyone from the public that
would like to address the Commission on this application? Do you
have a question sir? I'll close the public hearing at this time
then. What would the Commission like to do?
Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for this project.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It has been moved by Commissioner Shearer and second by
Commissioner Alidjani to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions Law, all in Favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA
CHRISTENSEN AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, if there is someone
representing the applicant or the applicant would like to come
forward at this time please do so. Okay, I need to have you be
seated or leave the rom please. Go ahead.
Van Els, 2408 Squire Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Van Els: I'm here to represent Bob Christensen on behalf of Briggs
Engineering and presenting to you Scottsdale Estates Subdivision.
I might indicate several points on this subdivision, I don't know
if you can see that any better. This proposed subdivision will
comply with all the requirements for public street construction and
curb/gutter/sidewalk. The proposed use complies with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan for the(end of tape) sections of the
Comprehensive Plan have been discussed in the rezone application.
The subdivision will be served by Central Water and Sewer
facilities. This rezone request is for an R-4 to an R-15 zoning,
while that sounds a little severe, let me explain what the
applicants intent is here. R-15 zoning allows for 15 dwelling
units per acre, the intent is to provide a facility or individual
lots, single family dwellings, zero lot line type development again
where retired or elderly individuals or those interested in smaller
lots can purchase lots that are easy to maintain. The lots are
considerably smaller, however the density of this project is only
4.6 dwelling units per acre. There will 27 lots, let me point out
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 29
to help you understand how the zero lot line development will, how
we anticipate it might occur. With the zero lot line we intend on
placing a down home type of patio homes I guess is actually the
technical term for it, on lots in neighborhood here perhaps here or
here. There will be some individual lots that will have to be
maintained and only serve as single family dwelling lots, they will
have to meet all the required set back requirements. The same
situation will occur down this area here, there may be a shared
common line amongst the dwellings. One of the reasons for the R-15
zone change request is that the R-15 zone allows for 2400 square
foot lots and the majority of these lots are in the neighborhood of
5000 square feet which I believe is considerably larger than the
minimum requirement of the zone. In the R-4 zone the minimum lot
size requirement is 8000 and in the R-8 zone its 6500 square feet
for single lot dwellings. So as you can see the applicants request
for 4500 if you could place a building on those you could see they
would be very small lots but with not a significant amount of
landscaped area that has to be maintained by those who would be
interested in these lots. Also, I will point out that the
secondary access will be provided from 7th street there will be a
connection along to 7th Street along the southern boundary.
Seventh Avenue. This is the Franklin Square apartments here and
that connection will be made to SW 7th for secondary access. With
respect to irrigation there will be no interruption or disruption
of the irrigation systems in the area and those items will be
addressed by Briggs Engineers. Are there any questions?
Shearer: What is the intention with the large lot on Franklin
Road, block 2 lot 1, it is 3500+ square feet, it has an existing
dwelling on it?
Van Els: At this point the owner is maintaining that as a rental
lot I believe. It is his anticipation to maintain that, I realize
that the Highway District indicated that it was their feeling it
might develop as a commercial site eventually but again that would
have to be brought before this body. This is a, at this point it
will remain as a single family dwelling lot. I'm not aware of any
intentions to do otherwise with it.
Hepper: Will these patio homes have a 2 car garage?
Van Els: Yes they will. We do have a variance application, here
again we get into the same situation as we did on the King Street
Station where we are going to be required to obtain a variance
since they are single family dwellings that will be sold we will
have to obtain that variance to get ultimate approval of this or
eventual approval of this application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 30
Aepper: Will the person that goes in there to buy one lot be
required to buy 2 lots so that you can develop the zero lot line
buildings, you know where they are contiguous to each other so that
they will be compatible? What keeps them from building one type of
house that is up to the lot line and some other guy comes in
totally different that doesn't even begin to conform to the one
that is there?
Van Els: I don't know the particulars about that, how that will
occur, that is the intent. I suppose there will a considerable
amount of coordination that will have to occur there. I don't know
the applicants intent, perhaps they will be building spec homes
there.
Shearer: The intent though is one dwelling unit per one lot?
Van Els: That is correct. Again the overall density of this
development will be 4.6 dwelling units per acre.
Rountree: Are these going to be site built?
Van Els: Yes, to the best of my knowledge they will be. The
owner's son is in the audience also, he indicated they will be site
built.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, thank you we may
call you back.
Shearer: Could I ask Wayne a question, Forrey? What is the zoning
on Franklin Square Subdivision?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shearer Franklin Square is to the east
its a four plex project, its R-8.
Shearer: R-8 in the town Square?
Forrey: And the four plex was approved by the city and developed
there those four plex lots.
Alidjani: Is it true that as they go further down they get mixed
they have duplexes and single family dwellings?
Forrey: That is on the west side of this project and is it
Crestwood Estates, predominantly single family and some duplex. So
this project is right in the middle of four Alex and single family.
Johnson: Thanks Wayne, anyone else that would like to address the
Commission at this time? I will close the public hearing at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 31
time.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman for the record I have closer than 200 feet
to this property i have to abstain my motion..
Johnson: Now you tell us. We won't ask you for a vote.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we have Findings of Fact
and Conclusions prepared on this application for a rezone.
Shearer: I'll second
Johnson: Never cease to amaze me, we have a motion and a second to
have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, all in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA
Johnson: For the record Mr. Alidjani abstains from voting. We
are going to break for 4 minutes.
Johnson; Lets reconvene.
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY
LESLIE PALMER:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing. If there is someone
representing the applicant that would like to address the
Commission please do so at this time, you need to be sworn.
Leslie Palmer, 1524 Meridian Road, was sworn by the Attorney.
Palmer: Have you got proposals, does everyone have one?
Johnson: We have some material, we don't have a lot of detailed
information.
Palmer: Okay, what I have is an existing home that we live in now
and we have an office attached to our home and we bought a lot in
Sportsman pointe we are going to build in Meridian, but what we
would like to do is to turn our home into a Day Care Center. They
recommended down at Health and Welfare for licensing for my full
amount according to my square footage which would be 40 but 30 is
what I would like to have as capacity. And just upper quality pre-
school age is what I'm shooting for, I don't want infants I want
21/2 to kindergarten age. And we are close enough to the
elementary schools we can pick up and take to kindergarten.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 32
Johnson: Okay, any questions of Ms. Palmer?
Alidjani: Ms. Palmer are you still going to live there?
Palmer: No, it will be just be a day care center.
Alidjani: The hours of the work?
Palmer: Probably, I haven't totally decided but probably 6 in the
morning to 6 in the evening.
Shearer: This is in a commercial zone?
Palmer: Yes it is zoned CC, there is businesses everywhere. It is
getting pretty buisnessy on that end. That is why I don't live
there.
Rountree: You indicated you would be seeking a permit or what not
form Health and Welfare.
Palmer: Definitely I will be licensed through the State.
Crookston: Do you have your license now?
Palmer: No, they recommended going through Planning and Zoning and
go the full round before I'm licensed because they will come in and
inspect and if there is not a place to inspect then, that is part
of you licensing.
Johnson: This new garage is under construction is it not?
Palmer: It is completed, it is just a shop, we have our backyard
completely fenced off, where you can't even see the shop.
Alidjani: How tall is the fence?
Palmer: 6 foot cedar.
Johnson: Have you talked with any of the property owners that you
notified in your letters?
Palmer: I've talked to several of my neighbors, and a couple have
called me. No one seems too concerned about it. In fact some were
excited. I had a few curious, just wanting to know what I was
doing but nobody seemed to care.
Hepper: Is there a business going to be run out of the home other
than the day care?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 33
Palmer: Well, there is an office attached to the day care but it
will be separate. And really it is just an office, I do book work,
I have an occasional builder drop plans off but that is it. We
have a built in intercom business and it is pretty much we meet
people on the site and I do telephone sales with it. But I have
talked to Larry and we have, he has approved it and we talked about
what to do as far as parking requirements. We will work with him
on whatever he thinks we need to do. We've got 103 feet of
frontage, so we have quite a bit of space to work with, and we have
a lot of parking in back for staff.
Johnson: You talked to Larry, which Larry did you talk to?
Palmer: Mr. Sale
Johnson: From ACHD?
Palmer: Yes
Shearer: This will solve some of the problems of putting it in the
residential area that we have been having.
Johnson: That is for sure, that is why there aren't very many
people here tonight. Any other questions of the applicant?
Rountree: How many staff individuals would you expect to have?
Palmer: Well, whatever the requirements are, I think they changed
it 1 to 8 for my age group that I will have.
Hepper: How many kids did you say you can have?
Palmer: I am going to license for 40 that is what the State
recommends, but 30 is all I want, so I will probably have 4 people,
no more than 4 would be working at a time any way, that would be
the max.
Hepper: How many off street parking spaces would you have?
Palmer: Well, we are going to have 4, we are going to put in a
circular drive and then 4 parking spaces at the end that are
completely off the street. So they won't have to back out into the
street. And we will still have landscaping our house will still
look like a house and it fits real well into the street.
Crookston: Will you have kids in the front yard, what is the front
yard now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 34
Palmer: No, all they will do is go from the car to the front of
the house and inside. In the backyard is the only place they will
be outside. Unless they are with their parent going to the car
Hepper: Will you need fencing to separate the play area from the
front?
Palmer: No, there is a back door and it is completely fenced in in
the back. So it is already secure. I have 4 children 5 and under
so it is secure, they can't get out no one can.
Hepper: Is it locked in some fashion?
Palmer: Yes, they have the gate, cedar gate. You have to be tall
to unlock it.
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Leslie. Mr. Forrey did
you have a question or did you want to make a comment? Would you
like to wait? Is there anyone else from the public that would like
to come forward at this time? Now you may come forward Mr. Forrey,
I thought maybe somebody else might have a question.
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when I was going
through some preparation for tonight meeting, I noticed there were
no comments on this Conditional use application form the Highway
District. I was thinking in my mind where are my comments, Gary
Smith's etc. and I asked one of the secretary's here that processes
this particular application and just through an accident neglected
to send out a transmittal to the Highway District or myself and
Gary Smith.
Johnson: All the agencies.
Forrey: All the agencies, so there are no comments form any agency
or any of the people, we have 30 on the list none of them were
contacted. She feels bad about it.
Alidjani: So that means no news is good news?
Forrey: Not in this case. So she will be taking action in the
morning. I just wanted you to be aware of that.
Johnson: It certainly is a vital part of our process to have those
agency comments. Unfortunately the oversight that we did not get
anything on this application
Crookston: Excuse me, I just have one question to clarify. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 35
property owners were notified though is that correct?
Forrey: That is correct and the Valley News, but she was unaware
the agencies needed to be notified in a Day Care of this type and
she is now aware of it and would never make that mistake.
Johnson: That is why we decided it was best to go through with the
public hearing because the public had been notified.
Crookston: I just wanted to make it clear for the record.
Shearer: Meeting all the City Ordinances and the Requirements for
this kind of activity should take care of any comments city staff
would have.
Johnson: Because of the size of the operation they are going to
have to meet all of the requirements.
Palmer: I have a question, is this a big set back or not?
Johnson: No, don't doom and boom yet, we haven't acted on anything
yet, we are still gathering information here. But you will be the
first to know. Okay, I did close the public hearing, did I not?
Crookston: No
Johnson: Okay, anyone else from the public on this issue, then I
will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Can we go ahead with Findings of Fact once the approved
going to Findings of Facts and then in doing them after he gets
these comments?
Johnson: I don't think there is anything prohibiting us from doing
that in the Ordinance or Law, it is just that you may want to
condition your motion if you have with respect to those comments
that are forthcoming. I think we still should solicit the
comments.
Alidjani: Wayne, how many days you can guess that it is going to
take for transmittal and to send out all these 27, 30 copies and
get them back?
Forrey: Our standing policy is minimum 2 weeks, but we give Larry
and others the Highway District that pinches them because they have
commission and staff meeting and things but most of the agencies
don't have a problem with 2 weeks minimum.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 36
Alidjani: So in essence if you asked at this moment asked for
findings of fact and conclusions of law with some conditions that
its going to come back within 2 or 3 weeks by the 2nd Tuesday of
January when we have our regular meeting we might have something in
front of it.
Forrey: Yes
Alidjani: Counselor, do you have any problem with that?
Crookston: I agree with Jim, I think you need to.
Shearer: I'll move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law provided he receives these items in time to
do that for the next meeting, if he doesn't receive them in time
for the next meeting then we will have to postpone.
Johnson: By January 11th, I think that is our only approach.
Rountree: I'll second that
Palmer: Will I be first on the Agenda?
Johnson: No, we draw straws for that. This is a short evening,
you should be here when we have long evenings. We have a motion.
Rountree: I seconded
Johnson: And a second, all in favor of Mr. Shearer's motion?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea
Johnson: At this point no set back. We have one other item on the
agenda. Which I'm going to defer at this point.
Hepper: If you defer you can't get Sale to testify.
Johnson: He is not leaving, we are going to jump back to item #1,
and I guess what we need is an explanation, a presentation by
someone representing the applicant or City engineer or Wayne
Forrey. Well, I think the commission needs to know why we are
bringing it back up is what I think. And you know why I agree to
do that.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, commission members, the preliminary plat of
Valeri Heights came before you at your last commission meeting and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 37
after that meeting the applicant, Vicki Welker came and talked to
Wayne Forrey and myself concerning primarily my requirement or my
recommendation to have a access a street access from her east
boundary across the Eight Mile Lateral. And it was her concern
that because of the size of her parcel and her desire to create a
somewhat private atmosphere for larger higher priced homes, larger
lots higher priced homes. That putting the access through her east
boundary would eliminate that concept and my main concern with the
access was to provide sanitary sewer service to Dr. Coe-Parker's or
maybe I've got that backwards Parker-Coe's I don't remember, that
was my main concern. Vicki indicated to me and to Wayne at that
meeting that was held informally here in our small conference room
one afternoon that she would provide a 20 foot wide common lot so
that we could extend sewer from her development to Dr. Parker's
property. Unbeknownced to me was the condition that you had placed
on at your commission meeting that the plat be resubmitted to you.
So I related to Vicki at that time that we could probably take care
of this adjustment in the final plat process. And so I guess it
was with that understanding that she felt she had an answer from
the city after talking to Wayne and I that her plat was not revised
and was not resubmitted.
Johnson: Oh, she talked to the wrong people. Do you have anything
to add to that Mr. Forrey? Would you like to verify what he said
Mr. Forrey?
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, when you made the
motion and were discussing the 1st item I was behind the screen
here and I couldn't catch your eye but that whole meeting flashed
in my mind for about a half a second and I thought uh-oh I think we
told Mrs. Welker or did we and I kept mulling that over and Gary
just reminded me that is exactly what happened. I think she left
the meeting that Gary and I had with here thinking that she didn't
have to bring something formally back to the commission that it
would come back to staff and there would be an internal review.
And I guess I dropped the ball, because I was at your last
commission meeting and Gary wasn't it and I should have remembered.
Johnson: Let's stand with the part where you dropped the ball.
Shearer: Correction, I think you were both at that meeting.
Forrey: Were we?
Shearer: Because Gary gave us the advice on the sewer for that
location.
Rountree: If I understand the rules of (inaudible) that you are
just talking about a 20 foot public access for sewer which really
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 38
doesn't require the re-platting and re-drawing of lots and its
preliminary plat that we had, actually its been 2 meetings ago if
I recall, and our concern last meeting was there was enough changes
recommended in the findings of Fact that we wanted to see those
changes reflected on a revised plat, and if in fact that is
admitted with the sewer easement maybe that addresses our concerns.
Is the change for all of those lots sufficient though that were
resented originally?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it changes them materially
commissioner, I think it moves them, it will move the lot lines
slightly to the south and it will carry the lot line adjustment
will carry around the culdesac and finish up on probably the first
lot west of the culdesac.
Rountree: So just to fix those parcels along that culdesac was
originally plated.
Smith: It appears that the common area for sewer extension will
be towards her northeast corner of the subdivision and so form that
area to the north of the culdesac and then south around the
culdesac to the west those lot lines would change, would move 20
feet approximately. And in one case I think it will help a lot
that was on that culdesac just on the northerly edge of that
culdesac it will help that because it had a very narrow portion
that abutted the culdesac that was really a very unusable portion
of the lot. So that lot line can move then to where it intersects
the bow of the culdesac rather than just missing the bow of the
culdesac and intersecting the street.
Forrey: It results in a better layout around the culdesac.
Shearer: I was under the impression from our last meeting that not
only we had a sewer problem but a kind of an access problem due to
the size and shape of that property, is that right?
Smith: Dr. Parker's property?
Shearer: Or is it
Smith: There is a stub street being provided from xaven Cove
Subdivision into his property.
Shearer: Oh, that is from the south or north.
Smith: Correct
Shearer: okay, I didn't realize it was a stub street going into
it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 39
Smith: Yes, correct
Shearer: Then he probably will end up with an access either the
south or east and the north.
Smith: Right, and I think the property to the east of him is being
discussed between the property owner and a prospective developer to
purchase and develop.
Hepper: Gary, is that a separate lot or is that an easement to the
sewer?
Smith: It would be a separate lot, it would be a common area lot
that the subdivision would maintain. They would maintain it just
like that little park area in the middle of the big turn. It would
be part of their common area they would have that, the 2 landscape
lots out front on Ten Mile road, the small park area and I think
there was a little island in the culdesac that was a landscape area
too. And I apologize, I really dropped the ball on researching
anything about, which won't happen again.
Johnson: Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate that. Is
there anything you want to add to that or does that pretty well
handle it?
Welker: No, do I need to sworn in?
Crookston: You don't have to be sworn.
Welker: I just want to clarify there were 4 issues so that you
understand all of them. Number 1 was the sewer issue, and we have
agreed to make the 20 foot re-improve it add a 12 foot width with
gravel or whatever requirements Gary wants to put on it we agreed
to put a manhole by the canal so when they have to bring sewer
across the canal the manhole is already there and ready to hook up.
We will fence across the canal if we get the variance for that like
the Parkside Creek people did, and in so doing if the City of
Meridian wants a common area back there like the greenbelt we will
provide a gate into the greenbelt improvements, depending on what
we end up with. The second issue is the configuration of the
culdesac itself, apparently the Fire Department has some problems
with the size of the culdesac island that we have created whether
or not the truck can get around there, so I agreed with Gary that
we will work with him to either reduce the size of it or do it in
a different configuration so the Fire Department doesn't have a
problem with that. The third issue is the sidewalk around the
park, there being none and we've agreed to bring in a landscape
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 40
drawing to the City Council so that they can see there is no need
for a sidewalk and the Highway District also so there is no need
for the sidewalk on the park area or we will provide the sidewalk
if they feel its needed after we bring the drawing in. The fourth
issue was the requirement to take the stub street to the south to
the Fuller's property and we've agreed with Gary and Wayne that we
will go back to the Highway District and work that out with them
independently to either do that or eliminate that through the
negotiations with the Highway District. And I believe its lot 7
and 8 that were going to run the manhole down between and then we
go up to about lot 11 where the lots lines will get reconfigured
and we have 2 really large lots on that end which is the south end
of the property and the ground will end up being taken out of those
so the rest of the lots remain the same size.
Johnson: Okay, Vicki thank you. Does anyone have any questions?
Rountree: Well, with these changes do we have to go back and look
at the conditions in the Findings of Facts or will the City, will
they look at those and revise them accordingly, where are we with
that?
Johnson: Mr. Crookston, where are we with that?
Crookston: Well, I'm not sure that the City Council looks at those
but quite frankly they also qo quite heavily on what you recommend.
Johnson: Where are we legally, do we have a problem?
Crookston: No, you can proceed.
Shearer: Did we approve Findings of Facts last time, I think we
did didn't we?
Johnson: Yes we did. We had quite a bit of discussion on that.
Rountree: That was on the rezone, annexation but we made not
recommendation on the preliminary plat.
Shearer: Yes, we tabled the plat.
Rountree: Given the resolve of the issues to end up with the plat
that was very close to what was presented I'd make a motion that we
recommend to the City Council that they approve the Preliminary
Plat with the changes that have been discussed and agreed to by the
City Engineer and City Planner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 41
Hepper: I'll second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to remove Gary Smith and
Wayne Forrey off the hook and approve the Preliminary Plat, all in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Sale: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a favor of the City?
Crookston: You don't need to be sworn.
Sale: Good, this is favor #1, I realize this is a little extra
step but it would help me and I think the applicant immensely if
we'd have a letter from the City expressing your approval of the
preliminary plat without street connections to adjoining property
and expressing your approval of that. Because we frankly had a
little heartburn when we reviewed the preliminary plat the first
time we were kind of steadfast in asking for a stub street out and
I'd like to have your expression of approval without the connection
in our file so that it will make it easier for us to approve it the
same way you have.
Johnson: Tell me how that makes it easier for you.
Shearer: You know, I'm back where I was a year ago, I don't know
what we are approving again. I mean now didn't we just say a
minute ago there is a stub street out of that to the south?
Johnson: No
Shearer: That is why I wanted a plat that will see what we are
looking at, I thought somebody said here just a minute ago that
there was going to be a stub street to the south not Parker's we
are not going to do that now but we, I was under the impression
that we were having one to the south.
Johnson: We've had our motion and our approval, go ahead.
Welker: I believe when it came up, when the plat came up the first
time that the Highway District requested the stub street to the
south, Mr. Fuller does not want one because when he develops iris
property he has access from Pine and Linder and because of the
marketing that Z was trying to do I do not want a stub street out
of the subdivision because I'm planning an upper level housing
development of only 16 homes and a private park for those 16
residents and if the stub street goes through that eliminates that
marketing concept. Now, then when the plat came before you, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 41
Hepper: I'll second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to remove Gary Smith and
Wayne Forrey off the hook and approve the Preliminary Plat, all in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Sale: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a favor of the City?
Crookston: You don't need to be sworn.
Sale: Good, this is favor #1, I realize this is a little extra
step but it would help me and I think the applicant immensely if
we'd have a letter from the City expressing your approval of the
preliminary plat without street connections to adjoining property
and expressing your approval of that. Because we frankly had a
little heartburn when we reviewed the preliminary plat the first
time we were kind of steadfast in asking for a stub street out and
I'd like to have your expression of approval without the connection
in our file so that it will make it easier for us to approve it the
same way you have.
Johnson: Tell me how that makes it easier for you.
Shearer: You know, I'm back where I was a year ago, I don't know
what we are approving again. I mean now didn't we just say a
minute ago there is a stub street out of that to the south?
Johnson: No
Shearer: That is why I wanted a plat that will see what we are
looking at, I thought somebody said here just a minute ago that
there was going to be a stub street to the south not Parker's we
are not going to do that now but we, I was under the impression
that we were having one to the south.
Johnson: We've had our motion and our approval, go ahead.
Welker: I believe when it came up, when the plat came up the first
time that the Highway District requested the stub street to the
south, Mr. Fuller does not want one because when he develops his
property he has access from Pine and Linder and because of the
marketing that I was trying to do I do not want a stub street out
of the subdivision because I'm planning an upper level housing
development of only 16 homes and a private park for those 16
residents and if the stub street goes through that eliminates that
marketing concept. Now, then when the plat came before you, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 42
Highway District had that requirement, and then Gary decided well
instead, I believe this was his thinking,that instead of doing that
he would require one going to the east instead because he wanted to
cover the sewer easement, but Mr. Parker had only requested a sewer
easement not a road. So I came back and said okay Gary I can
provide you an easement without a road and then I want to work to
eliminate the one to the south because Mr. Fuller and I neither one
of us want that one for all those reasons.
Shearer: Well, I can't say I'm happy about it, its not your fault
necessarily, but we ought to have a plat of what we are approving.
And obviously the way this has been bounced around I don't know
what we are approving. And I'm a little bit unhappy about it.
Welker: What I could suggest is that you approve the Preliminary
Plat as presented subject to the 3 requirements that Gary has asked
for and subject to my negotiations with the Highway District and if
I can't work that out with the Highway District with your approval
not to have one then I have to put the stub street to the south.
Johnson: Well, that is basically what we have done.
Rountree: I think that is what I said.
Johnson: Is that the way you recall the motion?
Rountree: Yes
Johnson: Well, back to Mr. Sale. I don't want to try and read
between the lines but are you saying, let me just ask you point
blank, are you saying you don't like what we did here and therefore
you want a letter?
Sale: No, I'm not saying I don't like what you did, I'm saying
that I've got being a good bureaucrat I've got all kinds of paper
in the file that made certain requirements and I'd like to have
another piece of paper from the City saying the project is fine as
submitted without stub streets and that gives some additional
reason to agree with that other than listening to the applicant
state that this is the only project of this kind in the world and
they don't want any connection with other projects.
Johnson: You want the wishes of the city stated in writing?
Rountree: Would that not come with the city's approval of the
final plat?
Johnson: That was my next question, can we do that at the City
Council level Wayne?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 43
Crookston: You can make a recommendation to that effect.
Johnson: We already have a motion and we've approved the motion
how would we enter that condition at this point?
Crookston: Make a new motion to add it as a condition.
Johnson: At this point we have done everything but select the
person to make the motion.
Hepper: well, I have a question why we need a motion, won't the
City approve the plat doesn't that then go to ACHD for your final
plat approval? Who has approval first.
Johnson: But he is not going to get the letter. If we go through
the normal process he won't get his letter. Isn't that right,
isn't that what we are saying? I mean I understand why he wants
the letter now, why ACRD wants the letter.
Alidjani: Why can't they do it next meeting when they approve it,
really.
Sale: Maybe Mr. Forrey or Mr. Smith can write me a nice letter on
letterhead to say what you did tonight.
Rountree: That is not really approval its a recommendation. All
we did is make a recommendation for approval, so they can come back
and say no. So a letter at this point in time is of no value.
Johnson: Well, it could be a letter of intention.
Alidjani: Can't he request at the Council level what Mr. Sale
wants?
Shearer: How many acres is that property to the south?
Welker: I think its about 14 acres
Shearer: 14 or 15, is that going to end up with streets that are
too close together down through there coming out of one
subdivision.
Sale: Probably not, I think there is sufficient frontage.
Johnson: Well, I don't mean to be short here but what we need to
do now is move on and I think Mr. Sweet has been very patient and
we need to go to the next item.
ITEM #8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 44
PRESENTATION OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION:
Johnson: We all have received some comments from Mr. Sweet that I
think we very well done and answered a lot of the questions
preliminarily here. Does everybody have the Pine and Executive
corridor connection presentation and then we will turn the meeting
over to Mr. Sweet, who does not need to be sworn.
Crookston: Ah, let's swear him anyway.
Sweet: Steve Sweet with W & H Pacific we've been working with the
Ada County highway District on a corridor study and identifying a
parcel of ground to connect Pine Avenue with Executive Drive.
Terry Little, the Traffic Services Manager for the Highway District
is here Mr. Johnson behind this machine, Larry Sale is here the
Development Services Manager for the Highway District. I'd like to
step through the typical project questions. I'd like to do a David
Letterman top 10 but I will stick to the script here. The project
has been identified in the 2000 urban classification for the area
and you can see on the drawing we have a blue arrow pointing to the
Pine Executive connection its been identified agreed to previously
that somewhere in the area we ought to be tying the 2 roads
together with a collector status street. For the record I've taken
the 2010 plan down and we are now looking at an aerial photo taken
in May of this year showing the area in question. Yes Mr. Berg.
(End of Tape) The Pine Executive corridor connection lies between
Fairview to the north and Franklin to the south, 2 arterials
presently in existence. For the record there is a third arterial
we also have in the area, Overland coupled with the Interstate. We
have plenty of traffic flow east and west and we are looking for a
connector to provide access to these 1300 acres roughly these 2
sections by sective. The plans that have endorsed this concept
have been the 200 urban classification system map, the one we just
had up, the 2010 needs a transportation and needs assessment for
Ada County and the Ada County Roads to Rivers plan. The point is
that we as a community have been talking about a connector in this
area. We looked at 3 different alternatives on that map you see on
the top a green line, in the middle there is a line that is red and
over the top of it is labeled preferred alternative, and the third
line is a yellow line. The green starts at Locust Grove follows
the existing sewer and fiberoptics line in the water there part way
into this area across the Treasure Valley business Center and goes
right along the mid section line once we get east of Eagle Road.
The red alternative would be the one that came out to be the
preferred alternative and I'll get to how we got to that decision.
The preferred alternative came straight across the mid section line
and came back on top of the green line. The yellow was, let's
frame this as far as it will go
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 45
and as far south as we can keep in mind we have the railroad track,
just to let you know we've gone through 8 official hearings or
discussions with folks, we've had an informal with Meridian
kiwansis where we talked about the project. The yellow line took
a lot of heat, nobody liked that. That framed the picture very
well. We have, I have a list of meetings I'd like to present to
you folks so you have something for the record summarizing the 8
meetings and the attendees. I also have a copy of the study and
the sign in list the mailing list that we dealt with in the
project. There are comments, so I'd like to leave those with the
City Engineer, so you'd have something for the record for Council
to review and any public that wants to come in and look you have a
copy of comments to date. And for the record I passed out to the
City and the study the appendix to the City Engineer. The greatest
support by far came from the landowners, that would be directly
impacted by the project the public that submitted testimony
favoring the project we uniformly in favor of the red route. There
was one petition signed by 24 homeowners requesting no activity at
all in a connection out there. I'd love to say that they were not
living on the Pine Executive corridor, they were off that site.
The red route received support from the homeowners, it provides the
best spacing for intersections between Fairview and Franklin it
provides good safety features when dealing with the railroad tracks
out there. The safety features in this project in addition to a
corridor and I'm going to show you a section here in a minute, in
addition to a corridor we contemplated to attach sidewalks away
from curb, striped bike lanes, aligning intersections at arterials
to accommodate future traffic signals and safe crossing, we have
recommendations for an unsignalized accesses for regulations for
safe vehicular movements. I would like to put up a, In your packet
there is a typical cross section and for the audience I will
describe it, it is 2 traffic lanes in either direction, a center
left turn lane, 2 striped bike lanes, a landscape and utility zone
outside the curb zone which is also long range corridor
preservation and 2 five foot sidewalks on the outside of that. I'm
describing a 52 foot paved road way, 2 eleven 1/2 foot landscape
utility zone long range corridor preservation zone, 2 five foot
sidewalks, continuing with a 90 foot right of way. The extra right
of way in this area will provide for the landscaping which will
help frame the entry into Meridian. The project was started with
the 2000 plan, this study is advancing the project by identifying
where in the future a corridor ought to be built when approvals
come in. The actual construction will take place when land is
developed and the cost will be borne by the developer. In the area
of Pine its existing today, from 1st to 6th there is 80 feet of
right of way for 6th out to South Locust Grove there is 50 feet of
right of way. Our recommendation contemplates meandering the road
right of way past existing home sites not taking rights away off of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 46
exiting single family homes as the traffic is not projected to be
that great in the future out there, way out in the future we are
looking at 5,000 20 years down the road. Our recommendation is
that right of way is not taken from single family homes and as the
market conditions bring increasing uses into the vicinity and uses
change from single family to commercial the right of way should be
acquired. I believe you will be seeing a recommendation from the
highway District on land use exchanges out there for an increased
right of way. This is Pine Avenue from 1st out to South Locust
Grove.
Johnson: I've got to ask you a question, your preferred route is
red and non-preferred routes is green, how does that happen what
kind of thinking is that.
Sweet: It was never as good as it should have been, I had three
colors available, what is going on in the market place today is you
can't buy this zip tape in but these tree colors.
Johnson: I really didn't expect an answer.
Sweet: And you'll notice the preferred alternative is blue.
Johnson: Are we ready for questions?
Sweet: Yes sir
Johnson: This disadvantage, I'm always interested in the
disadvantages here. I can see a straight shot with the research of
the traffic study, I don't know anything about that just makes
sense it would. Is that the reason with the volume there is no
meandering its more of a straight shot through there, tell me as
the transportation engineer why that is? Is that the reason,
because its straight.
Sweet: The idea in dealing with traffic is just like water and
with more resistance its going to squirt out a little more.
Johnson: The second thing, the potential crossing on the Free
Trade Zone a rail spur which is contemplated but is not there now,
right?
Sweet: That has been approved the rail spur is not there the
property is held by Treasure Valley Business.
Johnson: I know you have had meetings with those people, is that,
what kind of a problem is that. You say it is a potential
disadvantage.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 47
Sweet: It is not a big, as we identified that as a concern, and
this was something we put to the folks back in August trying to
frame the issue in our first public meetings. My understanding is
if there is a Free Trade Zone developed there, if this rail spur is
developed it would be of minimal use during high traffic times and
to tell you the truth they don't know what they have out there.
Johnson: I understand, it would be the same problem for any of the
3 routes, whatever is chosen.
Sweet: Yes
Shearer: I think its great after seeing all these subdivisions to
see a road that is actually straight and on the half section line,
that is different.
Johnson: Would you elaborate for me, again being interested in the
negatives, why you had 24 people sign a petition and what their
thinking was, the excuses they gave for not wanting any kind of
development.
Sweet: I can't explain why other than my understanding is that
there was one individual who is concerned. I could pull you their
petition and the response from the Highway District.
Johnson: Well, I guess I'm more interested not in the individuals
who they are or any of that, but their thinking, is there anything
specific about this place or is just the fact they don't want any
traffic through there period.
Sweet: The thinking is that Pine/Executive should not be
completed.
Johnson: The entire project, it doesn't matter which alternative.
Is there anything you can add to that, were there any other
concerns that you haven't listed here as disadvantages?
Sweet: I think that the meetings that we've had have been very
thorough in bringing these out. I think one thing that is
important for you to understand is that you can't go from a green
alignment to a red alignment or a yellow offset at the arterials at
Eagle. Because then we start having offset intersections the
traffic is stopped for one light backs up into another light or
backs up across the railroad tracks. I think from a safety
standpoint the yellow is the least desirable of all because of the
proximity tot he rail crossing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 48
Johnson: Where on this map is the Boise City limit?
Sweet: I believe the Area of Impact for Meridian
Johnson: I know where the Area of Impact is do you know where the
city limit is?
Sweet: No
Johnson: We now where that is because we work with that all the
time.
Sweet: I don't know, I'd be happy to put a sketch together for you
and ship that back.
Johnson: No, I just thought maybe you might know. Is the City of
Boise involved, obviously you talked to them because its in there.
And my next question is obvious, what is their response?
Sweet: We have notified Boise City a number of times concerning
the project and we have not received comment form Boise City.
Johnson: You don't have anything, you haven't had a meeting with
them like you are doing with us.
Sweet: And I'd like to get the Highway District a pat on the back,
we were directed to come and get Meridian's input and work closely
with Meridian in this, because this comes to the hear of your
community. They were very sensitive to that, that is why we have
scheduled this meeting you folks and we are scheduling one with the
Council before we go to the Board of Commissioners before the
Highway District and make the final recommendation.
Johnson: It just seems like such a natural, those of us that live
in this area and drive east you know whether you are on Franklin,
Fairview, or Overland it doesn't make much difference, it just
depends on the time of day. It just seems to me like a natural
positive step for this project.
Sweet: If I could, Larry do you have anything you'd like to add?
Sale: I'd like to ask the Chairman if he could write a letter to
speak on Hill road.
Crookston: What type of traffic control do you foresee on this
road?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 49
Sweet: I think the best traffic control
Crookston: In the terms of lights and stop signs, what kind
thoroughness are we going to have?
Sweet: On the arterials in due time, I'm not even going to answer
that I'm going to let the Highway District answer that because I'd
be talking about their future policy.
Little: We would ultimately anticipate signals at Eagle and at
Locust Grove, probably could handle most things everything in
between with to a left turn lane until we get a pretty good mid
section type of a connection there at, but I really wouldn't
anticipate that between Cloverdale and Eagle given the railroad
track and the barrier that presents. I think it will function very
well into the foreseeable future even beyond the 20 year period
with just a signal just at those locations, we could end up with an
interim 4 way stop at Locust Grove as a result of this. If I
talked about traffic calming, I could update about where the
Highway District is on that.
Johnson: We are still trying to figure out the definition of
traffic calming.
Little: What it really means, we just approved a policy at the
District, last week or this week, which deals with collector and
local streets not with arterials. This is a collector by the way,
but we certainly wouldn't envision in this 2 mile section where the
new road would be we'd be talking traffic calming. I could
envision a no truck sign at Locust Grove to keep trucks headed to
Eagle Road and the Freeway that kind of a thing and that
relationship. But there is a traffic calming policy that deals
with residential streets, it has some general categories we have
thresholds based on whether its a collector whether its a local,
how wide it is, sidewalks that kind of a thing. We have thresholds
for speed, traffic volume and cut through traffic and if it meet
the cut through traffic threshold then ACHD is willing to consider
full funding and the whole thing, if it doesn't have some cut
through traffic but doesn't have a, doesn't make the threshold it
needs 25s it is not a big percent, we will provide full support
residents are expected to pay the cost of the measures themselves.
This is done out in West Bamere if you are familiar with the
foothills, Bogus Basin, we did 5 road humps, big long speed bumps
and
Rountree: Jim we can finally see one, we've talked about them for
years.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 50
Johnson: Well, I (inaudible) a hump and a bump.
Little: A bump is about between these 2 plats and a hump is about
as log as your table here, 3 inches and they are fairly comfortable
at 15 - 20 miles per hour they shake your teeth at about 30. We do
have some longer ones for collector streets which we are planning
to try which they use in Portland which are 22 feet long. We are
going to use those on Gillis off of Gary Lane, but our third
category is where they pay for the whole thing in an enclosed
subdivision and then they are creating their own problem and they
pay for the whole thing. We are having a major meeting in the
Randolph Robertson area, you may have heard of Borah High School,
and they problems we've had for 3 years trying to resolve that.
We are having a meeting Thursday on that with a very Draconian
traffic calming plan that Pat Doby has developed for us to try and
resolve the high schools just cut through that it is like a freeway
on ramp. Borah Drive in the morning is busier than any half of the
day ont he Orchard on ramp, I mean it is solid cars.
Johnson: Well, that is where you are doing some temporary
blockading.
Little: Yes, we tried closer last year but it wasn't very popular,
we had a very heated meeting over that a very well attending meting
the biggest one we have ever had until bench valley and the hill
road meeting at least. We are trying something new out there but
that is something, we've talked to the Sandalwood folk on that,
they were interested in taking a collection for that. There is one
developer that owns the subdivision between Linder and Cherry in
the northwest corner that lives on Sandalwood I think he talked to
me about paying for some traffic calming measures. We are looking
into that, but we are involved with the Fire Department, some of
these closures can be really a problem for them. We got a letter
back this week, in one case they said we can't live with it, in
another they said we can live with the closure, you put right mid
house block, you have a 2 house block, this is hear HP and Five
Mile Road, but that is where that stands. Part of that policy
involves developer funded traffic calming measures and its where
we're directly impacting a development, you know they are dumping
right into a street and we envisioned it as a problem and about the
3 or 4 cases we've had thus far we've kind of negotiated and they
have been very willing to do it its very popular with the
neighborhood to existing neighborhoods very inexpensive relative to
development and maybe sometimes gives a few more lots. I could
envision this on a pintail type of situation or something like that
where there is a tough spot to get more collector access, an
interim measure a few more houses they do get bumps they stay in
forever and we eventually get the collector access, that kind of
thing could really
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 51
help us. We've had them approved for the Gilis extension down off
Gary Lane, Old town, Ustick, Wildwood, there is one off Five Mile
and Overland that have been approved I don't know that any of them
have gone in yet sometimes it takes awhile. We will get out a
laymans version of this thing and ship it out here to you to make
it understandable its pretty complicated in the way its written up
right now.
Johnson: What about your time table?
Little: For traffic calming?
Johnson: No, how far along are you on this?
Little: We are ready to have it approved by our commission and
begin implementation which is just corner preservation right now it
is just dealing with existing subdivisions and how they would
connect into it and we have the one on the corner of Eagle and
Fairview the southeast corner.
Johnson: You've had several meetings with Tom Wright?
Little: Yes, we are scheduled before City Council next week and
then the next thing, I think the next milestone is ACRD Commission,
we feel like we've got the homework done and its ready to
implement.
Rountree: Terry if I understood Steve correctly this would be
financed and potentially corridor preserved through the State Land
Use Planning Act by identifying it on the preservation within the
City of Meridian, but it will be developer paid for.
Little: Well we are really qualified, pretty much impact fee,
Larry could address that.
Rountree: Will that need to be developed with impact fees or a
combination?
Sale: It will be, the first step will be to acquire the right of
way as development occurs along it and we will pay for that right
of way using impact fee revenue collected in that zone. If we deem
at that time that the streets should be constructed we will pay for
any construction over and above what the developer might require to
serve its basic needs, we would make that payment again with impact
fee revenue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 52
Rountree: What are we looking at cost wise in implementation based
on development or are do you have some kind of a time line you'd
like to see this implemented.
Sweet: The fundamental assumption is it would be based upon
development. And we are looking somewhere around the order of a
million to million and a half bucks.
Rountree: Construction
Sweet: Yes
Johnson: Mr. Forrey
Forrey: (Inaudible)
Sweet: Yes sir
Rountree: Any controlled access?
Sweet: We have recommendations for limiting the commercial access
we also as a subdivision abuts the corridor there will be
designated access points there will not be direct lot access.
Gentleman, thank you for your time i appreciate it.
Johnson: Thank you, do you have any questions? If not then I'll
entertain a motion.
Rountree: I have one question, I'm seeking an answer from you, you
gave us this package of information on landscape ordinances, do you
have in mind when we are going to get together and talk about that.
Johnson: One thing we are not going to do is plan a meeting after
our regular meeting. No, I, because of my own selfishness I would
like to wait until after the first of the year. I have a very
tight agenda and to do justice I would like to have a workshop or
a meeting after the first of the year, but I haven't forgot about
it if that was your question.
Shearer: Sometime after the first meeting.
Johnson: We need a motion
Rountree: I'll move we adjourn
Hepper: I'll second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 14, 1993
Page 53
MOTION CARRIED: All yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
C~
JIM OHN N, CH RMAN a~~,l~
i 1
~-~~0~~~ ~- 20-~
~~~~` ~ ~ ~ 1593
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FARWEST DEVELOPERS
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
N 1/2 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 20, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on December 14, 1993, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a
representative, David Roylance, and in person and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for December 14, 1993, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the December 14, 1993,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 24.17 acres in size; it is in the North 1/2 of
Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada
County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that much of the residential
property to the west is zoned R-4 Residential but is developed at
less density than allowed in the R-4 zone.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owners of record, Gene A. Babbitt and Freda L Babbitt, have
requested the annexation and consented to the Application.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian
Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for single family
dwellings; Applicant's representative stated at the hearing that a
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
traffic study would be completed, there would be a landscaping berm
along Locust Grove Road, there would be a perimeter fence, that
Nine Mile Drain would be fenced, that the comments of the City
Engineer would be met, and that there still was a question about
pressurized irrigation.
10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided.
11. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County
Highway District, the Central District Health Department, Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the
Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The
purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the
establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where
predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect
the integrity of residential areas by
prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per
acre and requires connection to the Municipal
Water and Sewer systems of the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
Meridian.";
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone.
14. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
15. That the land is across Locust Grove Road from that
subdivision now in process of annexation and zoning known as Upland
Meadows.
16. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .
.'
18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
20. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
21. Meridian Police Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department,
Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, and
submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that the Meridian City Engineer and the Meridian Planning
Director submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
22. That the City Engineer previously submitted comment in a
different application that a determination of ground water level
and subsurface soil conditions should be made; he likewise
commented for this Application that a determination of ground water
level should be made.
23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that
the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Plan
indicates an elementary school site is needed west of this
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
subdivision near the center of Section 19 and that there may also
be a need for an elementary school site near the center of Section
20; that as a condition of annexation, a development agreement will
be required which will include an in-depth analysis by the Meridian
School district and the Meridian Planning Director to determine the
amount of land set aside in the northeast corner of this project
for a future elementary school/park site. The Planning Director
also stated that the preliminary plat needs to provide a stub
street to access the undeveloped property on the north and south
sides of this subdivision to provide access for future school and
park needs; he also stated that this annexation request should be
subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as
determined by the City and described in a development agreement.
24. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
"R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the
City of Meridian."
25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and
that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for
support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the
costs of building additional schools.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
~i
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
33. That there was testimony from Lidia Aguirre, John
Shipley, Clifford Babbitt, and Frank Stoppello, adjacent property
owners; Miss Aguirre desired less density, did not want to be
landlocked and desired a stub road into her property; Mr Shipley
was concerned about his cattle and children bothering them but he
wanted to work with the Applicant; Mr. Babbitt desired that the
drainage be fenced and desired pressurized irrigation and stated
that he has cattle and wanted protection for them; Mr Stoppello
stated he desired access and a stub road as part of the first phase
of this development.
34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
•
CONCLUSIONS
C~
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property..
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to
the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways.
10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the
adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant, and titled
owners, must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply
to the land and any development.
11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
including those he specifically stated in his comments and those
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada
County Highway District, including the traffic study, Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho
Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning
Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement.
13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation; that if Nine Mile Drain is not tiled, it
must be landscaped and improved as an aesthetic betterment for the
subdivision to be constructed on the area to be annexed.
14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be require#d to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall
address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of
11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning
Director, Wayne Forrey; that the development agreement shall, as a
condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if
required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or
transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met.
15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district
shall apply.
16. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that access to and for
•
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
the adjacent property owners will have to be worked out and
included in the development agreement, or the property will not be
annexed or, if annexed, it will be de-annexed.
17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian. ~~
19. That if these conditions of approval are et et the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
SHEARER
ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
,/~ l~
VOTED,"y,"
VOTED ~ ~
VOTED "~
VOTED
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
DECISION AND RECONMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoninq Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as
a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements and entering into the required
development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and
Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the
property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14
~ ~ OR~,~ ~~~~~,~L
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FARWEST DEVELOPERS
ANNSRATION AND ZONING
NE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on December 14, 1993, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a
representative, David Roylance, and in person and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for December 14, 1993, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the December 14, 1993,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
•
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 26.25 acres in size; it is in the Northeast 1/4 of
Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range I East, Ada
County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is
zoned R-4 Residential but is developed at less density than allowed
in the R-4 zone.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owner of record, J. G. McDermott, has requested the
annexation and consented to the Application.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian
Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for single family
dwellings.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided.
11. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County
Highway District, the Central District Health Department, Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the
Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The
purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the
establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where
predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect
the integrity of residential areas by
prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per
acre and requires connection to the Municipal
Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian.";
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone.
14. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
15. That the land abuts Meridian Greens Subdivision; that in
another request for annexation of land abutting Meridian Greens
Subdivision the City required that all houses adjacent to Meridian
Greens Subdivision would have at least 1,500 square feet in size
and that the house values would not be less than $100,000.00 to
$150,000.00.
16. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .
18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
20. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
21. Meridian Police Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department,
Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, and
submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that the Meridian City Engineer and the Meridian Planning
Director submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
22. That the City Engineer previously submitted comment in a
different application that a determination of ground water level
and subsurface soil conditions should be made; he likewise
commented for this Application that a determination of ground water
level should be made.
23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that
the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Plan
indicates an elementary school site is needed west of this
subdivision near the center of section 19; that annexation could be
conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area; he
also commented that the plat needs a 10 foot wide pedestrian
easement to the west and to the north to access the future school
and park site shown on the comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Director further commented that this annexation should be subject
to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
the city and designated in an approved development agreement.
24. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
"R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the
City of Meridian."
25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and
that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of
attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for
support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the
costs of building additional schools.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks'or shopping areas;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Desicxn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to
the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways.
10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the
adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant, and titled
owners, must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply
to the land and any development.
11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
including those he specifically stated in his comments and those
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada
County Highway District, including the traffic study, Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho
Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning
Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement.
13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be require#d to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall
address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of
11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning
Director, Wayne Forrey; that the development agreement shall, as a
condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if
required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or
transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met.
15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district
shall apply, but those houses within 500 feet of the boundaries of
meridian Greens subdivision shall have at least 1,500 square feet
and be constructed at a value of not less than $100,000.00 to
$150,000.00.
16. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
19. That if these conditions of approval are net met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL ~~~ A/
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED C
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
•
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED I ~~i(~~~~~~ppppy--~-'~-
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as
a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements and entering into the required
development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and
Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the
property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT S
OF LAW
DISAPPROVED:
Page 13
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
RODNEY BRADY & TERRELL TINGEY
VARIANCE APPLICATION
1114 AND 1104 WEST CHERRY AVENUE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
December 21, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing, the City Council brought the matter on for
consideration of the January 4, meeting but .the Applicant had
requested that it be tabled until January 18, 1993, the City
Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of a public hearing on the Variance
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for December 21, 1993, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the December 21, 1993,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that a
hearing on the matter was scheduled, noticed and held on December
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 1
i •
21, 1993.
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and the Applicants are the owners of the property which
is described in the application which description is incorporated
herein.
3. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and
11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the
City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
4. That the Applicant is the property owner and the
property is zoned Limited Office.
5. That Ordinance 11-2-410 A, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and
Coverage Controls, requires, in the Limited Office Zone, that the
Minimum Yard Setback Requirement is twenty (20) feet.
6. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
variance from the above yard setback requirement to build and
locate a garage 5 feet from the rear (North) property line; the
Applicant stated that the garage would face 11th street and would
be constructed out of metal; the Applicant's office building is
not metal but is wood and brick.
7. That the proposed dimensions of the garage are 30' by
36' and the garage would be located in the northeast corner of
property to maximize the parking space.
8. There was testimony offered stating objections to
construction of a metal garage. Guy Walker stated: "Not in
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 2
harmony with the rest of the area", "No rear space between garage
and adjacent property", "Property values will decline", "Concerned
about the composition of building". "The planned use and
development of the remaining property does provide the owner
special privileges that the rest of the surrounding property
owners do not enjoy." "The proposed metal structure is not in
harmony with the existing office building or existing residential
homes or day care surrounding it or with the existing zoning which
is limited office use."
Robert Dunn lives next door and stated that he did not want
a garage next to him and had the same position as Guy Walker.
Allan Walters states that he concurred with Guy Walker and
was concerned about the composition of the garage.
9. All those objecting agreed that the they'd like to see
the development of this property and the removal of the unsightly
dirt piles and weeds and potential fire hazard it now creates.
10. That the property where the garage would be located is
not well kept and is in need of maintenance.
11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that there were
some irrigation inlet structures near the northeast corner of this
parcel; that the structure needs to be located with respect to his
parcel's; north and east boundary lines to be sure there is access
for maintenance purposes. He also stated that paving,
landscaping, lighting and fencing are prescribed by Ordinance 11-
2-414 (D). Surface drainage from the paved area needs to be
retained and disposed of on-site pursuant to Ordinance 11-2-414
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 3
(D) 2. d.
12. The Meridian Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented
that the variance could be approved subject to the neighbors and
Applicant meeting and submitting a revised site development plan
showing construction and siting details; that a review of similar
buildings next to residential properties in the Old Town district
indicates that a 7 to 10 foot setback is workable for residences
and businesses.
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 of the requested variance
to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries
of the Applicant's property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to
Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record
submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial
notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 4
5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612 A. 1.,
of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as
topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit
development), may grant variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of
the Ordinance or that application of such provision or
requirement is impracticable.
6. That if a garage, parking, landscaping and lighting were
installed, it would be a significant improvement to the property
and the area.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-9-612 A. 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 topography, 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
Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 5
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of
the Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of
nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant; however,
the improvement to the property that would come with having a
garage constructed on the property would be great.
9. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2. it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of
the provisions of the Limited Office (L-O) street
frontage Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
street frontage Ordinance would not result in
extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of
factors not self-inflicted.
c. That the granting of a variance would not necessarily be
detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to
other property in the area in which the property is
situated because the property would be cleaned up.
d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering
the interests and purposes of the set back requirement
cf the Ordinance because their is normally only a five
foot per story set back in residential neighborhoods
which the Applicant's proposed garage would be next to.
10. That it is concluded that granting the variance, which
would grant the Applicant a special privilege, must be weighed
against the benefit of having the property improved which would
benefit the neighbors and the community.
11. That it is specifically concluded that most of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 6
objection to the garage was the type of construction, a metal
building; that if the construction type is changed it is likely
that the objections would not be there.
12. Therefore, it is hereby concluded that if the Applicants
are willing to design and construct the garage in the same fashion
as their office building using the same materials, and not metal,
the variance should be granted; that if Applicants are willing to
enter into a development agreement which will set forth the design
and materials to be used the variance should be granted and would
be in the best interest of the City and neighbors.
13. The City has in the past granted similar variances as
requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances;
each application must stand on its own merits and the granting of
one variance is not a precedent for granting others.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED_ ~~a~
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 7
That it is decided the variance of the 20 foot set back
requirement to a 5 foot setback is hereby granted if, prior to
issuance of a building permit, the Applicants enter into a
development agreement which sets forth the design and materials to
be used and all of the paving, landscaping, lighting, and fencing;
additionally the Applicants must take measures to protect the
irrigation facilities that are located on the property.
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF 'r'ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page - 8
~ ` R ~,` ii4~;
City Counr_il of Meridian
Dear Ccunci.l. Members,
January 24, 1994
My wife, Terri, and I are residents of the Chateau Subdivision
(.':g38 E. Green Meadow Ct.) in Meridian and wish to inform you of
our first hand knowledge of. the developer. of the 40 acre parcel
at the cornar of Locust Grove end Fairview. We have witnessed
the growth of tt,e main company, St or-:it Rental Storages,
represented by Avast Limited Partners, from 1487 to the present.
The Managers of 5tor-It facilities are very accommodating,
friendly, and professional. We have stored at their location on
Maple Grove in Poise. Their facilities, are well-kept and the
maintenance and landscaping is very pleasing and above average i. r,
t.}ie amount of grass and plants and tree.=: for typir.al .~rnraq,z
facilities.
We ;cnnw that now days any commerci.a.l development comes up acrainst.
much scrutiny from neighbors and realize that motet. of the
comments you receive will be from those that would rather not
trave their existing neighborhood c_.henge. Even though Terri. and I
wall have a neighbor (if this proiec+t. is approved) where we now
have an alfalfa field, we Y,new development of this large piece of
ground was inevitable when we bought our home in Chateau.
Reali=tically we knew that ti,is 40 acres wcvld prc,bab.ly not. he
residential with the commercially develc,ped Fairview Ave.
bordering the South boundary of tho property. It is my
ur,cferstanding that the developers are asking for a zone change
which would allow multiple-use dev+=lvpment of this land. A
planned community shopping area with proper attention to the
ner~rte of the 1,onres directly adja,_•.er,t to t..he development--and the
trane;itional land s,.,.rround.ir,g it, will be good for the Meridian
economy,
I support the neces^ary coning to accomplish ihi~ goal and have
c.r.nfidence that. the owner-s of t.hic? property w1.11 wort, with all
the neighbors to assure the continued peace and privacy of our
Femi-rural area.
Since y, `~
Greg Pu.r art
. M.., ,. i 5., a
I
(_ ,.
1/11/'34: FUBLIt~ HEARIFIG I'C:L:LENTA"1'IUN C~'t KATHLEEN WEBER,
GENERAL PARTNER ANC RGFRE'~ENTATSVE POE2 AVE'~"F, LT[?.
MP.. CHAIRMAN, r!~MMI`'C~ZGN NE:MDG;f=G, AFII'+ I1R. FhRRE't,
I WOULD LIY.E Tf? GIVE SOME EACKGROUND .TNFORMA?'i0N ABDU? AVFiST AND
CiHARE Oh1E SPEGI!'It;5 CiJNGERNI:NG THG: APPLICATION BEFORE YOU
TONIGHT. THEN, ROGGk ALLEN W+'JLILC LF.h:E TO D.LSCUSS SOME MAJOR
T`SGUE3 TG gi ( 'f'~vI '"t SLC~ i i"p' 'r t ~,.i.;;' +~"t~t~?MMF:NI?A'CTOFI "0 CIT'i
COUNCIL..
TIIF. APPROGAL PFiGCESt+ WAS L?EGUFJ CsN '[U'I'_i: i[C1 A~'tE PAF?CEL A YF:A12 A11P
A HALF AGO WHL.N MR. :IACI{ NIEMAN WAS THE C~ITS' F'LAtNER FttR
MLkIDIAN. S1NGE T}IE CITY GF MERIDIAN WAS' FLANFJING ;'0 REVISE
ll!EIR COMPREHENSIVE FLAN fiATNFI2 TIiA}! AMEND 'FHE OLL% COME` I'LA}J,
JACY. SUGGESTED THAT WE WAIT... SO, WL AG12EF:U TO POSTPONE
T RESEN'C1NG OUR PROJECT UN'i 1L 'F}IL NEW P1_.AN WAS, AhOS'TEU.
IN JUNE, 1993, A MDRATGRIUh! WAS F'LACEG UN RU:ILL%i}JG IN MERIDIAN...
`_:~i, WE WAITED SOME MORG.
IFl NOVEMUGR OF 193, WIIEP7 TNl~ PRGJECT CO'_ILD FINALLY E F'RFSENFED,
711 F. MERIDIAN CUIINCIL FOUND IT HAD A IF;W MORE COMPREHENSIVE FLAN
L'E7AIL.S TG WORK GUT IN RLGAkD TO TALKS WITH 'f}IE C:rp.iN'I'y
CUPIMISSIONERS.
THIS PROCESS HAS REEK GOOD FOR MERIDIAN ... S0, AVEST HAS BEEFI
PATIENTLY WAITIFIG. WE AF2F. VF_RY HO}'EFUL THAT NGW, WE CAFJ FINALLY_
I'kGCEED WI'CH GUR PRt)„?EC'f. •*.[ AM REALLY ANX.LUUS APGUT T11E
F kGSCFY:'1'S GF' FINALLY kC.IF1G AF+LE TO GO PGRWARD WI"IH 1'HI:~
FfLSEN'FA'f IGN.
t'F1LN.... , I RECEIVED T[IE AGENDA F012 T iiI~ MEG"PING AND_Ps;1UF~[! WL;,
WERE " L.At3T" GN THL. AC'iENDA, .[ DECIGE[I 'CHAT 4( M~.C1NE MUST ~IlI1:Nli 1.
1 'I+LLe NEED A GGCJD L!'-~~ON IN PA'i'IEIJCL '1f:1 ...I"M T`RYING!!
WE WANT 'CU HE SURE THAT WHA`f WE IiAVIi HEFVRE YOU `IUNSGHT 15
CLEARLY UNUEA.STOOD. AVEST' HA3 TWO AF'F'LIC'ATIUNS PCJR YOU TCI
CGN;IDER. ONE, IS AN APPLICATION FUR ANNEXATION ANh A CtN1NG
RECIUEST FUR A "CG" ZGNE FnR THE 4L?~ ACRF. PARCEL AT THE CC+P.FIER OF
LOCUST' GkOVE AND FAIRVIEW nVE. 7'}IE: '~~,ECONU AF'{'LIC:A'PION, 1S A
kEGJLIEST FUR A VJND.ITIONAL. USE FLRMI'( FUR A Rf1:FiTAL C'.TORAGE
CGMFLEH. WE ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE APPROVAL FOR THE C:TORAGE USE CO
WF_ CAN BEGIN BUILLING AS LOON AS WEATHFk FERM.[TS. WE WOULD LIKE
TG STAkT THIS FRGJEC'T :tN APRIL. OF 'CH [; YEAR. THI~"~ SS WHY WE AIiE
Rk1NGINCi HG'FH AF'PL:[CAT111NS A'C T'HE' SAME 'LIME L'JE'N THGUGH THE C.U.
PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON 7HF„ A1JNE]'.A'CION ANC! 2fJWING Al^FLICATION.
WL•' NAVE BROUGHT ALONG SOME PICTURES OF DEVELOPMENTS IN WHICH
AVES'C OR AVEST PARCNERS ARE MAJORITY OR SOLE OWNERS, WE HAVE
DEEN DOING PROJECTS IN TNE: VALLEY FOR DYER 3 YEARS. THE MOST
RECENTLY COMPLETED [''RDJECT I5 TI{E GOUTNSE{ORE SI{DPPING CEN1'E1? IN
SGU"CH EAST RUT'~;E. IT WAS DESIGNED TO CutIFORM TO THE NEIGHBORS
NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS AND SERVES AS A TRUE ASSE'C TO T'HE;
NEIGHBORt{OOD. SOUTIiG}IORF. ZS A ?_TN, C'v)0' E{Di'FING CF.EITSR WITt{ A
KMART AND AL6Ci:~ISJ,', Ai: C: E'-; F: f,I.D Wp.;'; .)CANT VE;t2TURE WITIi SOME OF
TH[: SAME PECIPLE TEAT WILL F'ARTICIPA'iE IN 'OBIS PR0.7ECT, NAMGLY THE
DEVELOPER OF SOUTti:~tiORE, MR. LARRY UURKIN, AND T'HE MAJORITY OWNER
OF SDUTHSHORE, MR. fi'DGER ALI_.EN. MR. I~IJRKIN'S FATHEZ I{Ap A
SURGERY TODAY SO LARRY GOIJLD NOT' BE !{ERIC. ON HIS BEHALF, I WDULO
LIKE TU FURNiSi{ A COPY, F'OR THE RE!;ORD, DF TFIE VERY Il1PRESSIVE
RESUME OF MR. DURKIN'S COM!'ANY, DA KO !'A DEVE;LDPMEt{'PS, AND I'CS
ACCOMPLISI{MF.NTS OVF.,R TFIE PA:;T YEAR',',, .INI"i_UDING 5D SHOPKO STORF;S,
7. KMARTS AND 23 OTHER SHOPPING CENTER UE;VELOPMEN'IS AROUND TIIE
CuUNTRY. ALS'0 INCE.UDED FOR "TFIE RECORD IS A LETTER FROM TE#E MAYOR
OF DOISE, MAYOR COLES, CONCERNING TFIE SPIRIT OF COOPE12AT1ON WITH
WHICH TNE SOUTHSHDRE SfIOPt'ING CE;NTEI? WAS DEVELOPED AND HIS
OPINION OF ITS BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF BOISE. HAY I READ THIS
~FEURT LETTER IN FU THE RECOR[_)S?
AVF'ST FIAS BEEN IN THE 5TOF?AGE F3USINE~C FOR THE F'At;T <0 YEARS'. WE
OWN, SUPERVISE CONSTT?UC'CION, AND OPERATE: ALL OF OUR DWFI
FACILITIES. OUR STORAGE C[JMPANIES ARE OUR MAINSTREAM INVESTMEN'C
700L. STOR-I7"S NEWEST LCIC:ATION A'I' 78(='~0 WES'C STAT'E.' Itt BOISE iS
NOTED FOR IT''S BEAUTIFUL LAWN AND LANDf~CAPiNC'i AT 'CBE ENTRANCE T'O
BOISE FROM EAGLE ANU HIGHWAY :.°~. I'LEASF. NOTE THF_ FICTLIRES WE
EIAVE DROUGHT TONIGHT.
THE STATE STREET LOCATT0P1 IS ^IMILAR TO T!IE PR;:!POC;ED S1TE AT
LOCUST GROVE ANI~ FAIRVIEW IN THAT WE F!AVE A F7EIGHE+OkING
t2ESIDEN'CIA1. SUBDIVISION BOR,D[SIt1NG 'CI{E TaUk'CNF.RN S1UE 2UR BACK) OF
'CITE PROPERTY. WE ARE CERTATt{ TBAT TNii PIEIGHPORS IN MERIDIAN WILL
FIND, AS OUR NEIGHBORS ON S'!'ATE ST'RF:E'C HAVE F'CJUNU 'CHAT, STORA[;ES
ANU STUR-1T IN PAR'LLCULAR MAKE A GUUD NEIGHBOR. I_N PAC"I~ WE
MAKIs PERFECT NEIGI{.[?ORS Wr. SGREC:N OUT 'CIdE NDISE FRUM T'RAFPIC (IN
THIS CASE FAIRVIFW AVENUE NUISE), Wh PROVIDE PRIVACY POR TIfEIR
BACKYARDS--STOR-IT UUESN'T RAVE DOE, CHILUREtd, LIGHTS, OR ANY
0T1{ER "NEIGHBORLY" CCIMPETLT'LUN E'UR VISUAL, AUDITORY UR ACTUAL
SPACE.. OUR STORAGL: F4UILDINGS PROVIDE: A SINGLE-S1L~ED, ONE STORY,
LANDSCAPED BUFFER FOR MAXIM(JM BACKYARD PEACE AND v)IIIET. IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD MEE'LINGS WITH THE MEIOHBOR3 WHO WOULCr BE DIRECTLY
AFFEC':ED BY T~iiIS S'ill2-~1Y DEVF'EPMEN'1', WE li0'i' VERY FAVORABLE
RESPONSE TU THIS FR0.7EC:T AtdD WERE. Gb'RN AS?;ED BY SGVERAL NE:iGHBOR~;
ON TO THE WEST OF APFLEWOOC++, IF WE GO!JL.DN'T EXTEND TILE STORAGE ON
LN THEM? DIRECTIIIN.
WE ALSO HAVE SUMS P7C'1'URF::; OF 'C{iE NEIhHBURNO~?DS DIRECTLY
ADJOINING OUR PROPER'PY ON LOCUST AND FAIRVIFW FOI2 YO(1R REFERENCE.
AVEST HELG TWU NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WE SENT OUT 7.30 1NVI:TATICJNS
AND INCLUDED RESPONSE STAMPED ENVELOPE'S.
ON MONDAY, DEC. 27, THE TOPICS DISCUSSED MA:CNLY CUNCEIINED THE
MIRAGE MEADOW NEIGHBORS 22 ATTENDED.
DN TUESDAY, DEC. 2t3, THE TOPIC WA`_S MAINI_.Y TF!E LOCUST f'~ROVE
NEIGHBORS GONCEEtNS REGARDING THE NEED FOR '37DEWALKS ANI:~ BIKE
LANE'S ETC. IN LIGHT OE' E7tPANSION OE' LUCLI'. T GROVE PROM A 2 LANE 'I'O
A 5 LANE PUAD HY ACHD IN ['?97, AVES>T [NVITEa~ MR. LARRY SALE FROM
ACHD TD ATTEND 'THIS MEETING TlJ MAKE: US AWARE, UP ACID' PLANS FOR
LOCUST GROVE. L9 AT'i'ENDF'D THIS MF.:E'iING, APPROXIMATELY ID WERE
NEIGHBORS THAT UIDN'T' ATTENU MONDAY NIGH`1'.
I ALSO CANVASED THE MIRAGE NEIGHBORS ON OAK~~REST AFTER THE FORMAL
MEETINGS THAT WERE NOT ABLE.TU ATTEND EITHER OF THE NEIGH60REi00D
MEETINGS. AS A RE`_~ULT, ANOTHER I] NE'IOF(BUR~ WERE SEfOWN MAPS AND
P.ECEIVED LENGTHY EHPLANATIONS OF Wt1AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEE'CINGS
WERE ABOUT AND WERE GIVEN AN OPI'ORTIINTTY TO SHARE IDEAS FCJR
BUFFERING USES. NOTES FROM TH1: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WERE PUl' ON
FILE AT C.I'CY HALL ON TIIURSC1AY fULLOwi_NG THE MEETINGS AND I
INFORMED NEIGHBORS THAT THE NOTES WE'RE THERE FOR '1'kIELH RG,ADING.
THE MEETINGS WERE INFORMATIVE TO [10TH TFfE Nf:Ii~HBORS ANU AVEST.
IT WAS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS "I'0 REALLY
KNOW WHAT' WAS BEING PLANNED ON TF{E LAND ADJOINING THEIR PROPERTY.
DUE TO A PRIOR NOTICE OF GEVELOPMEN'I BEING 5ENT UIJT PEFOItE AVE:.;T
HAD DC•VELOPED A PLAN MANY OF THE NEIGHBCRS HAD UNFOUNDED F'EAR~
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT. TU THEIR CRL-'DIT, THEY CAME WITH UI'EN
MINDS AND THE DISCUSSIONS WERE 60'CH PRODUCTIVE AND CONGENIAL.
ONCE AVEST WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE POSIBLE TRANSTTiONAL USES OF
THE LAND, MOST OF THE NEIGFIBOR3 SEEMED FAVORABLE TO TILE STORAGE
USE AS A BUFFER ANU PROVIDER CJF MAXIMIJM_PRIVAI;Y.
"1'HE RETIREMENT CENTER PROPtISED FOCI 'fHE NUR7'HWE<iT CORNER UE' THE
PROPERTY APPEARF,D TU ALSO BE AN ACCEI'TAB[,E BUFFERING USE FUR THE
NEIGHBORS TD TkIE WEST OF APPLEWOOD. AS I MEPITIONED EARLIER,
~EVF.RAL EVEN ASK IE' THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OE' THE STORAGE' BEING
Eri1'ENDEU ALONG T'HEIH PRL'PER'CY LINED. OEVERAL UINECI'LY IMPAC'T'ED
t1ElGHBORS STATED THAT THEY Wi'ULD NU'T' PAVGFt HAVING A PLAYGkC1UND
L'OkDEk THL•'IR PROPERTY ONCE WE DIc~CU:iUEU THE NOISE, POLLUTION,
ANiC1ALS ANv UT'HEk ASPEC'CS TLlA'I' PARKS MIGIi'f BkINC; '['U THEIR
BACKYARDS. WHAT AVEST HEARD, ANU WIIA1' WE WILL BE MUST SEtJSl'T'INE
Tel, IS 'CHAT 1'1{L' tJL-'IGHBUR WAN'C TI] RETAIN THEIR PRIVACY FRGM
P6CtPLE, BUSINESS, TRAFFIC, P[1LLLI'CIi'JN, AND NUTSI-:. BOTH '1'I1E
~,'I'ORAUE COMPLEX ANU A kE'1'LREMENT' CIi:NT'EK, WITH STRA'J'EGICALLY
1''I_ACED, 'J'HikEl a."JL:D, l.'ni~{;"ukFS UJ' '.>'i'i-r6:Aue: Aki:A:S ALONG PROPERTY
LItJICu WC)ULU SERVE 'fFII5 PiJk['OSE.
(NL_E ARE THL TtiINGE: TIJAT NA4T BF C i~ IN! ORI'UICATGD J N DUR
I't.VELt1PIP ."lT_F~itUPC~SAL _A~ A kE_LLi_UF_THL NEI6HBURHOOD MEETINLi=ANG
PS'fAF'F' kECUMMENUA'fl0ttt~: -
1. WE WOULD BE FAVURABI.E "fO CLU`_~ING AFPL£WUCill ANLi EX'fENDIiJG IT
ONLY AS A RECREATIONAL PEDEST7tTAN PATH TO GUR SHOPPING CENTER
LOOP kUAU WITH EMEkGENCY-ACCESS WUULE:N BALLAkUS' 'I'0 KEEP 'CIiAFFIC;
UU1'.
A::i A RESULT AVES'I' HAb ALkLAUY 1NCUttPUkA'I'Lli Ti1IS Ci.USUkE OF
API'LEWUOU FEATURE INTO ITS PFtCJJEC'T' DESIGN. THIS WILL CALM THE
TIIAFFIC LEVELS IN MIkAJiii MEADuWL: At1D IS ~'UFF'ORTED BY STAFF
kr'.PUk'1'S FUR THESE NEEDED AMENl'17E.S. AL`~~U WE HAVE }TAD TALKS WT'1'H
UUVE SUBDIVISION OWNER, Mlt. DAVE LEAUEk, AbUU"f iNCURPURA'1'1NG SOME
L1SE OF THE ABAt1DONED DIXTE LANE FkCiM MICtAGE AT OAKGRES'f TG THE:
FRONT UP T3IE S}IUPPINi:; CENT'EFt AE's A PEIiES'IRIAN PATH AS WELL.
MR. ANU MkS. STTPP AtJD KAREN BLP.NLY WHO I~A[:E DI}tEUTLY UN TO
AY}'I.EWUUD ANU MR. BUkKET"I' WHU~E iiLLKUUM WiNUU vJ F'AC:ES uN"I'U
APPLEWUOU WILL BE E~I'ECIAL.LY BENEE'T'I'TED BY THIS ABANUuNMENT OF
APYLEWOOU.
~. AVES'T HAS MET WT'CI{ TI1E Aftt_31ITECT FOR 7"F!ti SHCJSHONI BUILDING
OWNEFtS AND DESIGNED AN AGCE:P'l'AbLE SHAkED ACCESS WHICH MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF' AGH[s AS WELL AS SI'ORAUE AND "THE SHUSHUN~t GWNEFCS.
A1.L OF THE SITE tSPliCIFIC REVUE`~TS FROM ACHD HAVL•" BEEN
FiEVIEWEU AND AF:E ACCEP'T'ABLE ANU WE WILL BE AFsLE TCt MEET 'THL-'M.
MAFIY NEIGHPORS WRO'LE TU TNF_ CI'LY COUNCIL UPON THE INiTiAL NOTICE
OF THE PROJECT. ALL LETTERS FROM NEIGHPORS HAVE PEEN R63PONDEU
TO PERSONALLY PY AVEST.
THE CITY RECEIVED 15 LE"LTERS PRIOR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.
AVEST RESPONDED TO THE I1 PEOPLE THAI' WROTE ANU WERE NUT ABLE TU
ATTEND UUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGC:. THE RESPONSE LETTERS ARE IN
YOUR CITY FILES. ALU AYE~T RECEIVF:P ONLY 2 LETTERS FROM THF_ 13N
MAILED TO ATTEND THE NF-.I HFtQRH00D MGE"F'I"GS.
FGLLUWING AFtE TFIE CONCERNS FROM NEI1]H[}UR8 LE'LTF:RS PRIOJt TU THE
NEIGHRORHOOI~ ME'E'PINGS AND UUk CUMMEN'1'> ftFGAFth fJU TH'r.'M:
BIKE LANES WERE A C_CINCERN-: - THES[: WILT, FL•: I1dC(7RI'I_tRATED INTO TFIE;
AVEST UEVELGPMENT WITH SIDEWALKS F'OSSIHLY WI'}'FIIN THE HEItMING
ALGNG LOCUST GRDVE. WALKING F'A'LH FRUM APFLF'WOUG I'O SIJUI'F'ING
CENTER LOOP RCIAU AND A WAL.KTNG/HIKE PATH E'RUM DIXJE AT' MIkAGE '}'U
THE FRONT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
Ct~FtUL S'IREGT ALI_GNMLNT WAS MENTIC!NGD: ACRD WILL MOkE OR LESS
DECIDE THIS MATTER BC1T AVEST WILL WOkK WITH PG"LH ACHU AND THE
NEIGHPUkS kEGARDING THiS C:UNCEkN.
CCWCEkN ABOUT "CU" Y.O}JE: - MUEI' IJL•'(L~HBCIHS WEkE M1_!KE CC.IMF'Clli'fAbLE
WITH TH1S REQUI~::;T AF'TEFt IT WAS EXF'LAINI',l~ TFlA"I L_:A__tI AND EVEIt'f F'AitT
GF THE PRGIECT WILL HAVE TO GG TFIRUI1G1i CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS
ANU DESIGN REVIEW WHE'RS THEY WILL HAVE C!FPORTUNI'I'Y FOR INFU'L.
AVL-'ST MUST REQUEST' T'HI 'LONI}JG TO A'T'Tf'2AC'L 'fHfi TENANTS I'1' WISHES
TO HAVE PARTICIPATE IN THIS F'ROJEC"f AND THE CITY DOES NOT
RELINQUISH ANY CONTkOL OVER THF. PRC1,TgG'F '::INC:E: iT [S ALL UNDER
C. U. PERMIT. WE AkE ASKING FOR THIS 'LONE: BECAU~.E NAVINt~ IT MAKEti
I"i' ~US`~iNLE 1'CI UE51GN 'IH1S FRGFEkI'Y 'CC! ITS }iIGHE~:T AND BEST USE.
ZONING THE ENLIR6 PROPERTY "CG", AI.LnWS THE NF-.CESSARY FL.F.XI3ILITY
LO COMPREHENSIVELY F"'LAN ALL FARTS OJ' THF. LAMU IN A GOM1'A'1'IPLE
MIXED-IJSE DESIGN. NE:1GHb~JR:~~ WiLI.. ALWAYS HA'vE NEIGHHUfiHUOU
MEETINGS, STAFF, F&Z, AND CUUNC:[l.. MF:FT.INE!c: IP# WNICH TO RESPOND
AND PE HEARD PRIOR TO ANY PLtGL`OSED [)EVJLOFMJNT AI'PRGVAL.
liUFl?EE2IN(i NU1tiES;, TitkIGA'I'J.(JN,., TitA(~I'1~":
CHERE IS A MINIMUM 4~DC~' BUFFERING AREA BG'FWEEt1 MIRAGE MEADOWS
ItE:iIDENTS FROM 9'HE ttEAl? OF 1'JiE YftUYUCLD S[iOPP1N(i CENTER. 'F111'~;
WILL INSUNE; BUFFERING F'RCJM CC1MMCkCIAL AC1'IVI'FZES. IN ADDITION
"FHE Pl_ANNL"G STORAGE AND/GR 1[ETIREME:N'I' CENTER MAKES A GOOD
TRAN51'1'IUN FkUM RESIDENTIAL '1'U M1.kEU-U5E ANU TtiEN 'FO COMMERCIAL.
' ALSO THE kcuLJi„' liENl'~ PU}t AYYRUVAI. REGARD7:N0 IRRiGA"CIUN AND
ENGINEERING RE4tUT'. "" ANTS IEFE[REi1 TU IN TFIE LETTER FROM MR. GARY
SMITH WILL BE MET.
~. LUGUtiT URGVE READ FiAS BEEN ULS'Il5NA'PED 'fG BE WIDENED TU 4-S
L.At1E5 BY 1547 WHZCH WILL INCREAk~E'. TRAF'F'IC. WE F'E:EL AVEST'S
PARTICIPATION SUCH AS YERi1TNG, SIDEWALKS, AND LANDSCAPING WILL
~~C~F1'EN TFIE EFFECTS (iF' "I'Ii1S ROAD DEVEL.UF'MENT FUR THE NEIGHBORING
HOMES FACING LCJCUS'F GkuVt.
t•U5LL_; FAC1LIIiF..S;: .`.1GME NEIGHBUitS LE'Fi'EF:°~ YJ?Ul'Gf~EU USING A
PLAYGROUND TU J;UFFER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FROM COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT. WHILE AGkEEING THAT NEIGHBURHCtGD PARKS P.RE
DESIkA~Lt, THE BEST i'LACE FGR IT MIGHT NOT BE NEAR BUSY CURNER OF
LUCU:;'F GROVE AJ1D F'AIIiVIEW Clk A SHOPPING CEN'IEI?... Ult ALONG THE
~•ttOYU`.dED ~ I..AN1: LC"lr_:'.J;;T Gk(JVE HGAD_ IN ADDI'fIGW, THL'TtE ARE OTNi:R
ALTERNATIVE BUFFERING CUNCEF'1'S FGR THIS PIECE OF PrtUPERTY THAT
AFPEAk FAVORAEiLE TO 'FHE NEIGHBORS WHCt AtiE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TU
'T'HIS PRUYER`1'Y.
I'f HAS bEEN S'FA7ED IN THE IDAHO 6U:;iNES9 REVIEW THAT THE CHUkCH
BEING GUILT UN HIC60FtY A FHw BI_UCKS EAST OF UUR PkOJECT, WILL
}IAVE ;;GME WONDERFUL COMMUNITY FACILITIES LIKE AMPHITHEATEFtS,
Sl1FTBALL DIAMONDS, SWZMMINLi, TENNIS---ALL UF`E11 TU TtiE PUBLIC. WE
ALL NEED TU SUPPORT THE ~HUtiCii 1N 1'HELk Eh FURT'8.
IN ADDI'1'IUN, I BELIEVE THE COMP PLAN DCES St~ECIFY ACUMMUNITY
PARK ON THE CURNER OF LUCU51' AND US'TICH.
AVEST WANTS TO QE AN ACTIVE MBMF3ER OF THIS COMMUPdCTY AND
Ni?.1GHBORHOOD--WE WAP1T 'CO HE A GOOD NETGHBf?R NOT .JUS'C 'T'O TNOSt:
FAMILIES W}l0 DIRECTLY 'rOU!'H Wf2 PROPERTY, F't_I'r TO 'f}POSE PEOPLE WHCI
ARE LESS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. WE HAVE MACE AN E:FP'ORT TO NEAR FROM
EVERYONE THAT HAS WISNE6 1'O E:KPRESS APd OF']:NIt7td A}?C)UT THE PRC1PCiSED
PRUJECT--EVEN THOSE WIJO HAVE COML•' FROM SEVERAL CiLOCKS AWAY. WE
WANT THE ENTIRE AREP. TO PEVF.LOP :[N A PLEASING, UPSCALE MANNER AND
WE FEEL T}iAT O:1R P}sia.J[;;,'1', ON "filE FRINI3E 17 [' T'lil:i NEWLY UEVELC?FING
ME[tIDIAN NEIGHi30RH00D, WILL Ei~7'rH C~F.,RVE AF3 A GATHr'.RTNG E'LACE AN6 A
CONVENIENCE TO THiS NI':W NF.IGIIf)t)KHOOD
F7P.CAIJSF_ WE NOW CONSIDER THIS +~UI2 NT;CGIIP,O[?HOOD, AVEST AGREES' TO
PAY IMPACT FEES ANDlOR MAKE A MONETARY 1?ONATION TO 'rHG: CITY FOR
PURCHASE OF ANOTHER SITE A'wAY FF'tOM THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF OUR
PROJECT AND THUS MORE SUI'fAELE FOR A PARK F'DR UUR NL'IGdIL'OR'.~; TO
USE AND ENJOY. IT IS OUR UNDF.RS"rANDING THAT TFIE CITY IS WORKING
ON IMPLEMENTING THIS CONCEPT AND WE WANT IT TO HE KNOWN THAT WE
FULLY SUPPORT HAVING A1...L DEVELOPERS PAY THEIF2 FAIR SHARE IN OP.DER
TO PRESERVE AND CREATE COM11UPdITY PUL3LIC AM}'N IT[ES.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO I'RE31?PI'r TfiT'~; PORTION OP TAE
PROJECT, I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN OVER THt;I?ISCU~SION TO MR.
ALLEN.