Hartford Subdivision VARr ~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
- COUNCIL MEMBERS
OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
City Treasurer
GASS
JANICE L CITY QF MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
,
.
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer WALT W. MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supl.
33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water Supt. Planner s Zoning Administrator
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
JIM JOHNSON
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 8. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/24/94 HEARING DATE: 11/15/94
REQUEST: Variance RecLuest for Hartford Subdivsion
BY: Vijya Laxmi Develgpment Inc -
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NE Comer of Ustick Road and Ten Mile
Road -
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P2
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P2
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
_MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
CI'T ~' OF MERIDIAN
33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642
VARIANCE APPLICATION
(RE: Meridian Zoning Ordinance)
NAME: Vij~a Laxmi Development. Inc. Phone 336-2700
(Owner or holder of valid option)
ADDRESS: 2526 Airport W ~ Boise Idaho 83705
GENERAL LOCATION: NE corner of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Attached
PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF VALID OPTION: A copy of your property deed or option
agreement must be attached.
PRESENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-4
VICINITY SKETCH: A vicinity map at a scale approved by the Mayor showing property
lines, streets existing and proposed zoning and such other items as the Mayor may require.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS: A list of all property owners and addresses
within, contiguous to, directly .across the street, from, and within a 300' radius of the
parcel(s) proposed for a Variance must be attached. (This information is available from the
County Assessor)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED VARIANCE: To allow for a block len tgth _
which exceeds the maximum 1000' standard as set forth in the Meridian Citv Subdivision
Ordinance.
Signature•
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
Date Received
City Council Hearing Date
Received By
•
Application and Standards for Variances
1. Address of subject property;
Northeast corner of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads
2. Name, address and phone number of applicant;
Virya Laxmi Development, Inc., 2526 Airport Way, Boise, Idaho 83705. (208)336-0077.
3. Name, address and phone number of owners of subject property;
Ytjya Laxmi Development, Ins, 2526 Airport Way, Boise, Idaho 83705, (208)336-0077
and William Ray and Janet Wilder, 3340 N. Ten Mile Roat~ Meridian, Idaho 83642,
(208)888-2925.
4. Proof of ownership of valid option on the property or a contract interest therein with
consent of the titled owner;
Attached.
5. Legal description of subject property.
Attached
6. Present use of subject property;
Single family residential and agricultural
7. What is intended to be done on or with the property;
Develop a single family residential subdivision.
8. The district that pertains to the subject property;
City of Meridian.
9. Vicinity map at a scale approved by the Council showing property lines, existing
streets, proposed district and such other items as may be required;
Attached
•
10. Schematic building plans which indicate typical elevation and floor plan of any
proposed construction.
Not applicable, subject property will be developed as a single family residential
subdivision.
11. A list of mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic tax records of Ada
County) within three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the land being
considered and a listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners within the
area of the land being considered;
Attached
12. Characteristics of subject property which prevent compliance with the requirements
of this Ordinance;
The Five Mile Creek runs along the northerly boundary of this project leaving a narrow
triangular strip of ground which will only be developable near Ten Mile Road This piece
of ground will be accessed by Ten Mile Road, therefore it would not be practical to have
a stub street into the Hartford Subdivision.
13. Minimum requirements of this Ordinance that need to be reduced to permit
proposed use;
Allow for a block length to exceed the maximum 1000' standard
14. Difficulty or hardship which would result if requirements of this Ordinance were
applied to subject property;
If the block length requirement of the Ordinance were applied to this project a stub street
would be required to the north and an undevelopable piece of ground
15. Unusual or peculiar circumstances-which indicate that regulations of this Ordinance
should not be strictly complied with;
Requiring the owner of this property to provide a stub street tot he north would not be to
the benefit of the citizens of Meridian, the future homeowner's within the subdivision, or
for the developable ground between Hartford Subdivision and the Five Mile Creek
16 Statement that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the
land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district;
The Five Mile Creek runs along the northerly boundary of this project leaving a narrow
triangular strip of ground which will only be developable near Ten Mile Road This piece
of ground will be accessed by Ten Mile Road, therefore it would not be practical to have
a stub street into the Hartford Subdivision.
C~
CJ
REQUIREMENTS: VARIANCE
Attach a site plan showing all details of the proposed development, complete the
following questions and return with the application.
1. What is intended to be done on or with the property?
Develop a single family residential subdivision.
2. What special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the
land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same district?
The existing Five Mile Creek running along the Northerly boundary line of this
development.
3. Why will literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance deprive you
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the
terms of this ordinance?
Literal interpretation of the subdivision ordinance would require design and
construction of a stub street to the north to reduce the block length to the
maximum allowed by this ordinances The construction of a stub street to the
north would only provide access to an undevelopable strip of land and the Five
Mile Creek Under normal circumstances a stub street would not be required to
an undevelopable strip of land
4. What special conditions or circumstances exist that were not a result of your
actions?
The existence of the Five Mile Creek along the northerly boundary of the
development.
5. Why will the granting of this Variance not confer on you any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or building in the
same district?
A variance is not being requested to avoid meeting the general requirements of the
Meridian City Subdivision Ordinance, but only to prevent the construction of a
stub street that would not be to the benefit of the citizens of Meridian City, or the
future homeowners within this subdivision. The construction of a stub street to
the north would only provide access to an undevelopable strip of land and the
Five Mrle Creek which would be useless, except to reduce the length of the block
\,\~ ENGIiyF~9 • •
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 2081322-8992 ^ Fax 2081378-0329
9 Q,
ti~ SURV~~O
Project No. 94040
September 29, 1994
DESCRIPTION OF
HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FOR
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
THE S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4, SECTION 35,
T.4N:, R.1 W., B.M.,
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
A parcel of land being the S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35, T.4N.,
R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an iron pin marking the section corner common to Sections 2 and
3, T.3N., R.1 W., B.M., and Section 34 and the said Section 35;
thence South 89°15'30" East 2643.39 feet along the Southerly boundary of the
said SW1/4 of Section 35, which is also the centerline of East Ustick Road to an iron pin
marking the one-quarter corner common to the said .Sections 35 and 2;
thence North 89° 15'30" West 1321.63 feet along the said Southerly boundary of
the SW1/4 of Section 35 to an iron pin marking the W1/16 corner common to the said
Sections 2 and 35;
thence North 0°40'05" East 45.00 feet along the Easterly boundary of the said
S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35 to a 2-inch galvanized pipe, also said
point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT);
thence along the following courses and distances to iron pins:
South 0°40'05" West 45.00 feet along the said Easterly boundary of the S1/2 of
the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35 to a point marking the said W1/16 corner common
to Sections 2 and 35;
thence North 89°15'30"West 1321.76 feet along the said Southerly boundary of
the SW1/4 of Section 35 to a point marking the section corner common to the said
Sections 34, 35, 2 and 3;
Hartford Subd. Page 1 of 2
Project No. 94040
September 21, 1994
thence North 0°53'34"West 660.85 feet along the Westerly boundary of the said
SW1/4 of Section 35, which is also the centerline of North Ten Mile Road, to a point
marking the Northwest corner of the said S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35,
said point bears South 0°53'34" East 1982.57 feet along the said Westerly boundary of
the SW1/4 of Section 35 from an iron pin marking the one-quarter corner common to the
said Sections 34 and 35;
thence South 89 ° 14'23" East 1319.17 feet along the Northerly boundary of the
said S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35 to a point marking the Northeast
corner of the said S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35;
thence South 0°40'05" West 615.43 feet along the said Easterly boundary of the
S1/2 of the SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35 to the point of beginning, comprising
20.03 acres, more or less.
Prepared by:
NUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
443 ~
~~, q:Z9 6 ~
~ 9r~ 0 F ~ P~
~?%RY ~~~~Z»
JCM/DTP/GLR/bh/939.des
D. Terry Peugh, P.L.S.
Hartford Subd. Page 2 of 2
• ~ •
~-~ I
n _...._.-.-- -•-- ----~---
'%
\ C/tiA~O~i dA~tR/~`
~ A
RT
a~vi iw it,i CRiQt ~
"J
/i \~
.i~~~~ GRlCK
~ ~
I
~ i
I ~
1
C
vy ak
V •f~
\\
~ .,~~
`~ .
,F•
.,
Iti~~~
ia~616
•.~~ •
,,~L
~.
W
r
Z
AA P'.ANNING ASSN.
AU6 2 6 199
'~~ ~~,
~.
_ ._ . T
S1,tgDlYlStO~
CS
KD
area enu arrxuvr.D: ;
.~~_~.
WARRANTY DEED i•
For Value Received RAY WM. WILDER AND JANET WILDER, HUSBAND AND WIFE
The grantorg , nc hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto -:::',~~y~:.~AXIKI. 1~EYET.nPMENT, i
• ADL• iDAFE~'•' fiUdt'!?¢1tATIUN' - . _ ' ...". '
the grantee ,whose current address is 8589 BROOKVTF.W DRIVE, }30ISE, ID 83709
the following described premises, in ADA County Idaho, to-wit:
SEE ATTACHED EXHJ:IS1'1 A, WHICH BY THIS REFERENCE.SECOMES A PART•HEREOP, AND
WHICH IS COMPRISED OP ONE. (1) PAGE.
Post-It° brand fax transmittal memo 7671 ~a p.se.
r~c.~ .~°
t:o
c~
Dsp• Phons~
i
~x ax A
S`#09215b
s~cu~rrtr -~~.
v. !i n'i 7 .. iri'i ..
301SL I~
'9'# G~CT~ ~~.4 ~ 6
FEE.~_ :...
70 HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with them appurtenances unto the said Grantees ,
HI5 heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantors do hereby covenant to artd
with the said Grantee ,that he the owner in tee simple of said premises: that they aro free
from allincumbrances except current pear's taxes, conditions, covenants, restricitons,
reservations, easements, rights and rights of way, apparent or of record.
and that he will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
Dated: October 14, 1994
Y WM. WILDER J WILDER
STATE OF IDAHO. COUNTY OF Ada STATC Or' IDAHO. COUNTY OP
On tn~s ].4th dayotOctober ,1994 I hereby certify thet this instrument was (clad for roCOrtl at the
before me, a notary public in and for the said State. personally request of
appoarco Ray Wm. Wiir_1er
and Janet Wi~`z at minutes peat o'clock M..
a. ` ;e~Ja. ~ ~
iY0 ~
known Or identilt'''e...t..l,,t11:t me to ba th r b
subaoribod to t ~i~rtrttinstr~nsnf~~
that the ~ ~ ~ `~ 4'g
~ ,
,tp ~ J `, ~~d'
n o'
Residin goisra
Comm. Expires 5/26/2000
this day of ,
19 , In my Ottlce, and duty recorded In Book
Ot Deeds at Page
shame
Ig,nt to m•
the same.
Ex•Otficio Recorder
sy
Notary Publ10 e--~y;
Idaho F*os S
Mafl to'
2
C
m
''~ NUBBLE ENGINEERING. INC:
..
~~ ey ~ 9550
1'o Su ~~o
Project No. 94040
^ Boise, Idaho 83709
PATEL PURCHASE FRAM WILDI=R
/322-8992 • Fax 208/378-0329
The S1/2 of the SW'I/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 35, T.4N., R.1W., ti.M., Ada
County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the corner common to Sections 2 and 3, T.3N., R.1 W., and
Sections 34~ and .35, T.4N., R,1 W., B.M., from which the South quarter corner of said
Section 35 bears Soutli-89°15"30"East, 2643:39`feet;•~
Thence North 0°53'34" East, 660.$5 feet along the West boundary of said Section
35 to the S-S1/f34 comer;
Thence South $!7°14'23"Cast, 1319.17 feet to the C-S-SW1/64 corner;
Thence South 0°40'05" West, 660.43 feet to the West 1116 corner on the South
boundary of said Section 35;
Thence North 89°15'30" Wost, 1321.76 fact to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described parcel:
Commencing at the comer common to Sections 2 and 3, T.3N., R.1 W., and
Sections 34 and 35, T.4N., R.1 W., B.M., Thence North 0°53'34" East, 347.44 feet along
the West boundary of said Section 35 to a point; Thence South 80°11'00" East, 45.55
feet to the REAL, POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence along a line 45.00 Westerly of and parallel with the West boundary of said
Section 35, North 0°53'34" East, 101.44 feet to a point;
Thence South 89°14'23" East, 136.62 feet to a point;
Thence South 0°53'34"West, 123.21 feet to a point;
Thence North 80°11'00" West, 138.30 feet to the Point of Beginning.
r
..
i
Said parcel containing 19.651 acres, more or less. Subject to rights-of-way for
West Ustlck Road and Ten Mile Road along the South and West boundaries
respectively.
Prepared by:
RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
DTP/vw/des.888
D. Terry Peugh, P.L.S.
(R-O-W acreage included in above description is 1.123 acres)
w ~s~
~~. ~i
URA
•
RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709
October 18, 1994
City of Meridian
Ms. Shari Stiles, Planning Administrator
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Hartford Subdivision
Variance Application
Dear Shari,
208/322-8992 ^ Fax 208/378-0329
~~~~ . ~~
z ~ ~~~.,,
0f..1 t.:Jf
K
On behalf of Vijya Laxini Development, Inc., I hereby submit the attached variance request
to be heard before the Meridian City Council
The subject property is currently zoned R-4 in Meridian City, and the owners of the subject
land are Vijya Lanni Development, Inc., whose address is 2526 Airport Way, Boise, Idaho
83705, and Wm. Ray and Janet Wilder whose address is 3340 N. Ten Mile Road, Meridian,
Idaho 83642. The subject property has been used for agricultural purposes -and has an
existing single family residential home which shall remain as a portion of the subdivision.
Vijya Lanni Development, Inc., is requesting a variance to allow a block length to exceed
1000' as set forth in the Meridian City Subdivision Ordinance along the northerly property
line. The Five Mile Creek runs along the northerly boundary of this project leaving a
narrow triangular strip of ground which will only be developable near Ten Mile Road. This
piece of ground will be accessed by Ten Mile Road, therefore it would not be practical to
have a stub street into the Hartford Subdivision. Requiring the owner of this property to
provide a stub street to the north would not be to the benefit of the citizens of Meridian,
the future homeowner's within the subdivision„ or for the developable ground between
Hartford Subdivision and the Five Mile Creek.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this request, and please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tracey Persons
Project Coordinator
tp\071.1tr
NGI/y
N~
•
~~
• •
RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709
October 18, 1994
City of Meridian
Ms. Shari Stiles, Planning Administrator
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Hartford Subdivision
Variance Application
Dear Shari,
208/322-8992 ^ Fax 208/378-0329
0t; i Z ~l f`~~4
lei T I 'v d ey':-.{yiu llY!`i
On behalf of Vijya l..axini Development, Inc., I hereby submit the attached variance request
to be heard before the Meridian City Council.
The subject property is currently zoned R-4 in Meridian City, and the owners of the subject
land are Vijya T.axini Development, Inc., whose address is 2526 Airport Way, Boise, Idaho
83705, and Wm. Ray and Janet Wilder whose address is 3340 N. Ten Mile Road, Meridian,
Idaho 83642. The subject property has been used for agricultural purposes and has an
existing single family residential home which shall remain as a portion of the subdivision.
Vijya Laxmi Development, Ins., is requesting a variance to allow a block length to exceed
1000' as set forth in the Meridian City Subdivision Ordinance along the northerly property
line. The Five Mile Creek runs along the northerly boundary of this project leaving a
narrow triangular strip of ground which will only be developable near Ten Mile Road. This
piece of ground will be accessed by Ten Mile Road, therefore it would not be practical to
have a stub street into the Hartford Subdivision. Requiring the owner of this property to
provide a stub street to the north would not be to the benefit of the citizens of Meridian,
the future homeowner's within the subdivision„ or for the developable ground between
Hartford Subdivision and the Five Mile Creek.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this request, and please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~ `~~~
Tracey Persons
Project Coordinator
tp\071.Itr
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: November 151994
APPLICANT;VIJYA LAXMI .INC. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 15
REQUEST;VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HARTFORD SUBDMSION
BC~ENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
COMMENTS
"REVIEWED'
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
~ ~ ~L
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ,~ ,
~~~
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: r~ ~ ~ ~ t
V
OTHER:
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY QF MERIDIAN MAk YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer WALT W. MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
t
w
s
33 EAST IDAHO
SHARI STILES
ater
.
up
JOHN T. sHAwcFlOFT, waste Planner & Zoning Administrator
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief IDAHO 83642
MERIDIAN
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief , JIM JOHNSON
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning & Zoning
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to
Meridian .City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 8, 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/24/94 HEARING DATE: 11/15!94
REQUEST: Variance Request for Hartford Subdivsion
BY: Vijya Laxmi Development Inc
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NE Corner of Ustick Road and Ten Mile
Road
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P2
JIM SHEARER, P2
-CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
-TIM HEPPER, P2
-GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
-BOB CORRIE, C/C
-WALT MORROW, C/C
_MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
-WATER DEPARTMENT
-SEWER DEPARTMENT
-BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
-CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL P
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT E~IrI~'~
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH O C T 3 1 1994
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ,
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT CITY fir t+a~;,iirls',ite;`i
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE~MARKS:
L?C/'~l~lrrt yr_ try
O C T Z 9 1994
CITY OF 1~ER~DIAN
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY •
~ s~ OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHARI STILES
Planner 8 Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to
Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 8. 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/24/94 HEARING DATE: 11/15/94
REQUEST: Variance Request for Hartford Subdivsion
BY: Vijya Laxmi Development Inc --
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NE Comer of Ustick Road and Ten Mile
Road
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P2
JIM SHEARER, P/Z
-CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
-TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
-SEWER DEPARTMENT
-BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
-POLICE DEPARTMENT
-CITY ATTORNEY
-CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION ~.ECE~~ ~-~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ~ C T 2 6 ~9~~F
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLA'~~ ~ `~ ~~' I~islL~lU1t~Y~~
U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES !!`` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OTHER: ~V ' `7
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS:
A Good Place to Live
CITY QF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
CENTRAL
•• DISTRICT
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat
REVIEW SHEET ~~~~~
Environmental Health Division Return to:
NOV 0
3 ~gg>} ^ Boise
,~. ; . ~ Eagle
i+~;t;its.~'tE~
Garden city
Meridian
^ Kuna
^ Acz
--- ~'AYL-f Mss -- ~I,~'F'fl~D S~T31~ f ~ I S i ~ ~
^ I. We have Objections to this Proposal.
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water
^ solid lava from original grade
^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers:
^ 2 feet
^ 4 feet
^ 7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well
^ interim sewage ^ central water
^ individual sewage ^ individual water
^ 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
^ sewage dry lines ^ central water
^ 9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ I I . If restr0om facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage
Regulations.
^ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
13. ~O O~l~-~7D7'uS OI'' C~ 3/"!/`'1 >~Ni ; Date: ~/ ~ /
Reviewed By:~'
LDND 10/91 rcb, rer. I I/93 jll
' , HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOLSMA
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
W
S
CITY QF MERIDIAN MAk YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
eer
GARY D. SM TH
P.E. City Eng WALT W. MORROW
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt.
33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner a Zoning Administrator
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief JIM JOHNSON
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 t. r , ., Chairman -Planning & Zoning
'P r 1
artment (208) 887-221
ildin
bli
W
k
/B
D
P
g
or
s
u
ep
u
c ,
GRANT P. KINGSFORD .
Mayor L ~ ~
ti °y~' ~,~
; .;~
R, , ,.
TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVEZb`P11~''I~ROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the
Meridian City Council, please submit your comments and recommendations to
Meridian -City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: November 8, 1994
TRANSMITTAL DATE: 10/24/94 HEARING DATE: 11/15/94
REQUEST: Variance Request for Hartford Subdivsion
BY: Vijya Laxmi DeveloEment Inc
LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NE Corner of Ustick Road and Ten Mile
Road
JIM JOHNSON, P/Z
MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z
JIM SHEARER, P2
CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z
TIM HEPPER, P/Z
GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR
RONALD TOLSMA, C/C
BOB CORRIE, C/C
WALT MORROW, C/C
MAX YERRINGTON, C/C
WATER DEPARTMENT
SEWER DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNER
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
~_NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT)
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT)
CITY FILES
OTHER:
YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrieation
District has no comment on the variance for
Hartford SLbdivision.
Bill Henson Assistant Water_Sun ;n nd n
Namna ~ MPri di an Trri gar; nn Tl; crr; r•r
~[~
N ~ V - 7 199+
t~TY OF 1~~RID1K~f
i
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEM~6,1994
APPLICANT; VIJYA- I_A)CMI. INC. ADGENDA NUMBER; 7
REQUEST; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
HARTFORD SUBDIVISION
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
COMMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO ROWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
~~~~
~~~
t~~~r~~~ ~~~~n~e~
~ a~~ 6a~
OTHER:
L~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF VIJYA LA7CMI DEVELOPMENT, INC.
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 E.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on November 15, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through its engineer, Jim
Merkle, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and
written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
on November 15, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the November 15, 1994, hearing; that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E. , 11-2-419 D. , and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That Ordinance 11-9-605 E. requires that blocks shall not
be less than five hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 1
lengt ; that 11-9-612 A 1. states as follows, pertaining to
5 - a~ed S1~ISIniSS2i9K SONKNSZNIKW QNK SNSWSSKS SNII'I 2iSMSS
variances of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance:
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.
4. The entire property in question is described in the
subdivision application and is incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
5. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential.
6. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the above requirements and be allowed to have a block
length of greater than 1, 000 feet and stated in its Application the
following statements:
"The Five Mile Creek runs along the northerly boundary of this
project leaving a narrow triangular strip of ground which will
only be developed near Ten Mile Road. This piece of ground
will be accessed by Ten Mile Road, therefore it would not be
practical to have a stub street into the Hartford
Subdivision."
"If the block length requirement of the Ordinance were applied
to this project a stub street would be required to the north
and an undeveloped piece of ground."
"Requiring the owner of this property to provide a stub street
to the north would not be to the benefit of the citizens of
Meridian, the future homeowner's within the subdivision, or
for the developable ground between Hartford Subdivision and
the Five Mile Creek.";
and stated comments in response to the questions asked of an
applicant for a variance which are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full, but particularly that in response to the question,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 2
•
"What special conditions or circumstances exist that were not a
result of the development?", stated, "The existence of the Five
Mile Creek along the northerly boundary of the development."
7. That the Applicant is presumed to have purchased the
property knowing that Five Mile Creek was located where it is and
that the City has a maximum block length of 1,000 feet; that the
Applicant is not being asked to construct a bridge crossing of the
Five Mile Creek because the Applicant apparently does not own the
land between the subdivision and Five Mile Creek; that the City, if
the variance is denied, would require a stub street to the north to
meet the required block length; that the City has required other
subdivision developers to meet the block length requirement and put
in stub streets.
8. The property in question is in the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 11, T. 3N., R. 1W., Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho.
9. That the City has not received the comments of the Ada
County Highway District and if they are received they shall be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
10. That the City has not received the comments of the City
Engineer and if they are received they shall be incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
11. That John Schaffer, a neighboring property owner
testified that there should be access off of Ten Mile Road into
this subdivision; that there could be potential traffic problems
with the way the subdivision is laid out; that one entrance into
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 3
• •
the subdivision was not good; and, with an entrance on Ten Mile
there would be less traffic on Ustick.
12. That the City has received input concerning the
development of the property to north of this subdivision, but has
not received a request for annexation or for approval of a
preliminary plat; that the land in the development input is to the
north of Five Mile Creek but there may be a need when both
properties are developed for a road crossing of Five Mile Creek.
13. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were 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 has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances; that 11-9-612 B
1. a. states that the variance procedure shall follow requirements
contained in 2-419.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Zoning 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 4
• •
~ abEd - SSIIrdO MOHS OS 2iSQ2i0 2103 I~IOIZOW
• •
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612,
Variances, of the Development Ordinance is noted which is pertinent
to this 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 the specific requirements regarding a variance
that 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 ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. 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 Development Plan.
7. That there does appear to be a benefit, profit, economic
gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the Applicant would
ultimately have less road way to construct and pave and would be
able to possibly have an additional lot in the subdivision.
8. That the Five Mile Creek is a natural topographical
feature in this area which is a physical limitation, but it is a
limitation that can be overcome by a bridge; that the denial of
this variance will not require the Applicant to construct the
bridge because Five Mile Creek is not adjacent to Applicant's
property.
9. That regarding Section 11-6-612 A 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 this Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable in
that Five Mile Creek is not adjacent to the Applicant's land
and Applicant would not have to construct a bridge across Five
Mile Creek.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would not result in extraordinary hardship to the
Applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted. The
location Five Mile Creek was not self-inflicted but the
Applicant purchased the property after the Five Mile Creek was
in existence. Also, it is concluded that allowing the
variance would result in inhibiting the objectives of the
block length Ordinance.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 6
•
CJ
detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated. This
is because there may be a need for the property to the north
across Five Mile Creek to have a means of access across Five
Mile Creek.
d. That if this variance were granted it would mean that the
property to the north would not have the ability to have an
access route across Five Mile Drain and that would have the
effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance.
10. That it is concluded the Application should not be
granted and the variance would not be in the best interests of the
City.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
VOTED ~~~ ~"`t
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED~~'" ""
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
APPROVED:_~V
VOTED
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 7
•
DECISION
L~
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Application of VIJYA
LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. for a variance from 11-9-605 E, which
variance would allow a block length greater than 1,000 feet, is
hereby denied.
APPROVED : -~~~ ~! DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF
VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page - 8
•
Meridian City Council
November 15, 1994
Page 31
on that one.
ITEM #PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION BY
VIJYA LAXMI, INC.:
Kingsford: I probably erred gentlemen on the public hearing, it was noticed we had
probably better take testimony on item #15 if I haven't already chased people off. I fowled
up, it has been noticed it would be appropriate at this point to have a public hearing. At
this time I will open the public hearing and invite testimony. I had stated at the beginning
of the meeting (inaudible). I had said the wrong one I put 15 instead of 16 was the
problem.
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merkle: The Hartford Subdivision located the northeast, it is a 20 acre parcel, located on
the northeast comer of Ustick and Ten Mile Road. Here is Ten Mile Road and Ustick and
the treatment plant is up here. It is a 60 lot subdivision which has been annexed and
preliminary plat approval has been given by the City of Meridian. The variance request
here before you this evening is basically allow a block length in excess of 1000 feet which
is basically along the north property line. It is a 1/4 mile 1320 by 660 and this basically is
in excess of 1000. The reason being when we went through the preliminary plat process
by the highway district and the city to the north of us is the Five Mile Creek right through
here, the Cresson lateral, here is the north boundary of our subdivision. The purple here
is the floodplain limits of the Five Mile Creek. (End of Tape) The property to the north,
this is Ray Wilder's property here, is under one ownership and extends up from Wilder's
up to the north and it includes both the 100 foot easement for the drain and I'm not I think
60 to 70 feet for the Creason lateral. Basically we didn't feel the need to stub a street to
the north in this location. Our entrance comes right here and we are tying into the east
eventually. It basically leaves a sliver of ground in here probably after you take out the
easement probably only 40 or 50 or 60 feet and it gets up to 80. And basically this piece
of here could be developable (inaudible) access off of Ten Mile Road into a single
culdesac there. I am not sure and I am not involved in this property, I am not sure they
would extend this across to develop some ground that is basically not worth anything
under the single family developable piece. That leaves us without a stub street to the
north and that is the reason for the variance request. .
Kingsford: Can I look at the plat side again please? Mr. Smith, didn't we finally arrive at,
it didn't have to be the exterior perimeter block length that it was, since that street goes to
the south mid way that constitutes a block. We have been this road a lot times I know,
what is your opinion of this, I am sitting here thinking we don't need a variance.
• •
Meridian City Council
November 15, 1994
Page 32
Smith: Mr. Mayor I know we have had this discussion on every subdivision and I think that
Shari's attitude has been that the block length is a 1000 foot requirement along the exterior
boundary of the subdivision by ordinance that it is a block. That a block is defined by
intersecting streets.
Kingsford: Well, then I am suggesting that we have one to the south mid-way through that.
Doesn't that constitute a break up of that block length?
Smith: I think it is the block that is in question would be the block contiguous to the exterior
boundary of the subdivision which would be I guess a block in my thoughts would be a 2
tiered layer of lots that would compose a block and what you are looking at on the exterior
boundary is one half of the depth of a block. If a subdivision developed to the north of this
or to the east of this project that the adjacent lots that would abut the boundary of this
subdivision would then form the other half of the block depth. And the length of the block
then would be the 1000 feet between the intersecting roads.
Kingsford: I think what Mr. Merkle is suggesting is that isn't going to happen on that side.
Smith: Right, that is what (inaudible).
Kingsford: There is no way you are going to have a 2 tiered.
Smith: Right
Kingsford: Thank you, that helped me a lot, I guess we will wait until the next meeting and
talk about it again. Any questions of Mr. Merkle by the Council?
Morrow: I have a question, I have seen a presentation basically for the 320 acres that
surrounds this property and has there been any coordination by you with those folk with
respect to the tie ins for your stub streets?
Merkle: Mr. Morrow, no, there has not. This project has been through the process of the
City and has preliminary plat approval and annexation and they have not come to me nor
have I gone to them. I was not even aware that piece abutted up to this.
Morrow: Jim, I can't tell you that it abuts up to it entirely, I know that the 320 acres is a
consortium of various land owners putting together the project in order for it, or at least
thinking about putting the project together as one major project.
Merkle: Who is the applicant?
• •
Meridian City Council
November 15, 1994
Page 33
Morrow: It is coming through Tealy's Land surveying and so my thought was that maybe
we don't back ourselves into a corner here in terms of talking about block length and no
access to the north since we don't know whether they are looking at an access at the north
or not. I throw that out.
Merkle: Hot having seen their layout or talking to them, it seems to me that it wouldn't
serve a purpose for these folks.
Morrow: I am asking a question, I am asking you if (inaudible) coordinate at all.
Kingsford: Ron makes a good point with regard to that block length and what you can do
if he is con'ect, we just approved Layne of Idaho with roughly 2000 feet on the south side
of that that abuts the railroad tracks. If in fact you can't access the north of that they are
virtually the same thing. I don't know if we can get there from here. I guess the thing is
you can approve a variance if that is your desire and then that covers either way. I think
what maybe Walt is saying though that prior to approving the final plat we would certainly
like to see you or I would, I think I am hearing Walt say that, coordinate that with Tealey
and see what the plans are and maybe it would be appropriate to adjust the north lots to
maybe where you have access into the north if they desire to go across that ditch.
suspect you are probably right Jim, but it would be a good idea to coordinate.
Merkle: I am not going to say 100% but there are 2 reasons we deferred the final plat one
was the sewer to the east issue and the other was this issue. Because final plat approval
with no variance means nothing. It would be recommendation that t believe the variance
requires findings if we can move on with that process just in case that is the desire of the
council to approve it, so I am not backed out another month or 3 weeks or whatever it is.
You understand what I am saying.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? I guess, that is an issue, first off we have to
require a variance if we do and I guess we already have. I think we need to have findings.
Is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue?
John Schafer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schafer: 1 am totally confused. As I stated at past meetings and through hearings I would
request the public access come off of Ten Mile Road into this subdivision. I don't know if
that would help the situation with the block length or not with that situation. With the
increased traffic on Ustick Road and the additional 60 houses plus Candlelight across the
street I think there could be a potential traffic problem in and out of the subdivision with the
2 roads directly across from each other and the distance from the corner. Maybe this is
a mute point at this time but I just thought I would bring that up again, it might be an
•
Meridian City Council
November 15, 1994
Page 34
alternative to the block length also.
Kingsford: Would you expand please on the road that you are saying to the east?
Schafer: I'm sorry to the west, Ten Mile.
Kingsford: Any questions?
Schafer: It does leave just one access in and out of the subdivision through the south.
Corrie: I am trying to remember there was some reason, somebody didn't want an
entrance off of Ten Mile was that Ada County was it their recommendation (inaudible). I
don't like one way in and out either, do you remember (inaudible).
Schafer: (Inaudible) never heard the reason it was brought (inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible) until such time that this opens up over here.
Kingsford: What was your logic, Mr. Merkle, if I could ask you, what was your logic in not
having access onto Ten Mile.
Merkle: Let me recall, when we did the original layout, let me back up, he made the
comment about this tying into the street across the street that is a requirement of the
highway district. The proximity to the intersection that is a requirement of the highway
district. We just felt that one access into the subdivision, basically we have a divided
access, we have emergency access here, there is basically no need for secondary access
into the subdivision. Mr. Wilder's house is still here it will continue to get access off of Ten
Mile Road which basically the drive way to the house is pointed that direction. The sewer
does need to come out there, if we punch the road through he will lose a lot in there that
is another reason why. And then one entrance is very sufficient for 60 lots and we have
a secondary emergency access. So in our opinion there was no need for it.
Kingsford: Any other questions?
Schafer: Comment with the one entrance in and out of the subdivision, that may be the
case but with the reasonable location to Ten Mile and the easy access in and out of Ten
Mile to the subdivision I think that could be an additional ease onto Ustick Road from other
subdivisions that develop down the line. It would be just one additional alternative in and
out of the subdivision to eliminate the full amount of cars out of that subdivision onto Ustick
Road. It was just an alternative.
Meridian City Council
November 15, 1994
Page 35
•
Kingsford: Any questions the Council might have? Thank you. Anyone else from the
public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? At this time I will close the public
hearing, Council members now you can have those findings.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have findings of fact and conclusions of law
prepared for the variance request by HartFord Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Item 16 was the one to be tabled, we accomplished that:
ITEM #17: DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Shari, do you propose to lead that discussion on the Englewood Development
Agreement.
Stiles: I think they have a representative.
Jewell: I am representing the developer, I don't know whether I want to lead this
discussion or not. First of all did everybody get a copy of the letter explaining what the
purpose is for our request to make some changes?
Kingsford: Do you all have a copy of Wayne's comments on that?
Morrow: We had 2 letters in our packet, apparently one is the original and the one with
the comments on the left hand side those are Wayne's comments.
Kingsford: When did you do those the letter is dated April 21st. When did you do those
notes?
Crookston: I think that I did those on the 10th.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: Did you get those comments Mr. Jewell?