Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings Facts and Findings: A. General Information Owner -Maws Limited Partnership Applicant - Tealey's Land Surveying R8 -Existing zoning 1.157 -Acres 9 -Proposed building lots 269 -Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Adkins Lane Local street with no pathway designation No traffic counts available 480-feet of frontage 40-feet existing right-of-way (20-feet from centerline) 50-feet required right-of-way (25-feet from centerline) Adkins Lane is improved with 23-feet of gravel with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Adkins Lane has been improved with a 37-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5- foot wide sidewalk to the north of the site. B. The site is currently undeveloped. C. The applicant is proposing to construct 10 lots on the east side of Adkins Lane. Danbury Fair Subdivision No. 7 abuts the north property line. Danbury Fair No. 7 was required to complete Adkins Lane abutting their site with a 37-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant should be required to extend Adkins Lane as one-half of a 37-foot street section plus 12-feet of pavement with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site (approximately 480-feet). The applicant should be required to provide 24-feet of off- site pavement from the site's southern property line to Pine Avenue. D. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. E. The applicant should be required to construct the driveways for Lots 29 thru 35, Block 1 of Maws Addition No. 3 a minimum of 5-feet from the property lines and pave the driveways their full required width to at least 20-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Adkins Lane. MAWADD3.COM Page 2 • F. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. G. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report. The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for prior to ACHD approval of the final plat: Site Specific Requirements: Dedicate 25-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Adkins Lane abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will not be.compensated for this additional right-of-way. 2. Construct Adkins Lane as one-half of a 37-foot street section plus 12-feet of pavement with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site (approximately 480-feet). 3. Provide 24-feet of pavement from the site's southern property line to Pine Avenue on Adkins Lane. 4. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 5. Construct the driveways for Lots 29 thru 35, Block 1 of Maws Addition No. 3 a minimum of 5-feet from the property lines. Pave the driveways their full required width to at least 20-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Adkins Lane. 6. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future development of this parcel. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of wh~such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9'00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD ('ommission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. MA WADD3.COM Page 3 Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Conunission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall s~ecificall iy dentify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. MAWADD3.COM Pale 4 Conclusion of Law: ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted bX Date of Commission Action: Planning and Development Staff May 20 1998 MAWADD3.COM Pale 5 • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAWS SUBDIVISION N0.3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF PINE AVENUE AND WEST OF NORTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD REcETvED MERIDIAN, IDAHO JUN - 8 1998 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on May 12, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., .the Applicant, appearing through its representative, Richard Pavelek, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the application for the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled on May 12, 1998, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1998 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. 2. The property is located within the City of Meridian at the North of East Pine and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) West of Locust Grove. The property is described in the application for a conditional use permit, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. Pursuant to the application, the property is presently zoned as R-8, Medium Density Residential District. The proposed use of the property is to decrease the size of house square footage minimum requirement to 1209 from 1300 square feet, and to decrease frontage requirement from 50 feet to 45 feet per lot, and to construct seven (7) townhouse units, and two single-family units. The Applicant presented a site plan depicting the location of the proposed use. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the R-8 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4., as follows: ~2-81 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 5. That the planned residential development of 7 townhouse units and 2single-family units in a district of R-8 Medium Density Residential, as proposed by the Applicant, is an allowed conditional use in the R-8 District. 6. That the subject property is presently vacant. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 8. Richard Pavelek was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Pavelek noted that it is the developers desire to build a townhouse style unit, with each unit being self-owned. He noted that the units would be 1209 square feet and likewise the lot. width would be 45 feet. He noted that the street frontage widths are less than the requirement- under the ordinance. He noted that the developer also understands the square footage is less than the requirement but asks the Commission to consider the project as a townhouse style project. He noted the density is within the requirements in Meridian's ordinance. He noted that he would like to discuss staff comments, specifically item #5. He noted that the only way to build the project is through the PUD process. One of the requirements is the open space requirement. He noted that the current project is deficient in the open space requirement. Mr. Pavelek noted that the developer could add two more townhouses and decrease the size of the other two open lots. His preference, however, is to approve the plan as submitted. He noted item #6 which requires 5 more feet for a set back. They will redesign the unit to pick that up. Item #7 notes that a variance from City Ordinance would need to be granted because pressurized irrigation does not seem to be proposed. Mr. Pavelek noted that he would talk to the developer about the irrigation issue. Item #8 talked about single family units. Mr. Pavelek presumes that these townhouses would meet that standard. Commissioner Johnson inquired how a townhouse meets the definition of a single family detached dwelling unit. Mr. Pavelek noted that his definition of a single family is that each family owns a separate unit. Furthermore, he noted that the property line runs through the building. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) i Commissioner Johnson inquired about specific site comment #7 pertaining to irrigation rights. He inquired whether there were any bills from Nampa Meridian Imgation District. Mr. Pavelek noted that there were not and he presumes that Maw's Subdivision One and Two were also excluded by application. 9. Commissioner MacCoy noted that he had a difficult time accepting this project because of the square footage of the buildings and the property. He noted that he does not like the thought of townhouses because of the potential of turning it into a rental complex. He doesn't think that can be prevented. Commissioner MacCoy noted that his preference is for good solid quality homes in the area. He noted that he does not want to see the project turned into a series of rental units. 10. Mr. Pavelek again noted that it would be no different than a house being rented out. Mr. Pavelek noted that the units are for a couple that don't want a backyard and the responsibilities that go with it. The project is designed to allow common areas to be maintained by the association without the responsibility of individual property upkeep. Commissioner MacCoy inquired about the quality and materials used in the project. He wanted to know what the buildings would be made of. Mr. Pavelek noted that they would come back to the Commission with the owner at a later time to assure the Commission that quality construction would be used. Commissioner Borup noted that the property in question is a remnant from the first development. Mr. Pavelek agreed with Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Borup inquired about why it was not incorporated into the original subdivision. Mr. Pavelek noted it was because it did not have direct access from the internal streets. He also noted that he did not know FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • • why it was not included but it was all under the same ownership. Commissioner Borup inquired if it was a developer's decision. Mr. Pavelek stated that he did not know where the decision came from. Commissioner Borup noted item #8 of the Staff comments which referred to Ordinance # 580 which states that only single family, detached dwelling units shall be constructed. Mr. Pavelek noted that when he had a technical review of the development, a number of issues were covered but not the definition. Commissioner Borup inquired about an ACHD report. Mr. Pavelek noted that ACHD had found that there is capacity to handle this development. He noted that they are looking at a 24 foot wide lane of pavement. He noted the developer would provide sidewalks, curb and gutter on the development site. He noted there is a ditch on the other side of the street that allows for the 24 feet. He noted that its 24 feet of pavement and the developer would provide the other share of the right of way. Commissioner Borup inquired about the size of the right of way. Mr. Pavelek noted that in the end, it will be a fu1150 feet of right of way, but the balance will come off the adjoining property. Commissioner Borup inquired whether the improvements would extend to Pine. Mr. Pavelek noted that they would not because there is a garage that sits in the right of way and beyond. Commissioner Borup inquired if the sidewalk would go through it. Mr. Pavelek responded affirmatively. Commissioner Borup inquired about item #5 of the Specific Staff Comments. Mr. Pavelek noted that it would require turning the two family lots into townhouse units and shrinking the lot size to get to the common area requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • Commissioner Borup inquired about the well development fees in lieu of the irrigation system and whether that has ever been paid. Mr. Pavelek stated: "I think that probably would be the more pertinent question, and again that's something that I think the burden on us would be to find a confirmation that in fact had been paid. I presume that it had because there was multiple phases and I can't imagine that we could do phase one, not pay the fee, come back and do a second phase. So my assumption is that it has been paid, but we could find record of that." Commissioner Smith noted that he drove around the whole area of the project. He noted that the whole area was single family dwellings. He wanted to know why should the Commission deviate from the single family detached dwellings for a few remaining parcels. Mr. Pavelek noted that there maybe other similar units in the area and further this concept is compatible with a single family residential area. Commissioner Smith commented that the units are compatible in certain situations, but he does not necessarily believe that this is one of them. 11. Robin Shay was sworn in by the Assistant City Attorney. She noted that there would be approximately four (4) home sites backing up to her back yard. She is concerned about the townhouses overlooking her backyard and how it could effect her kids being able to play in their own backyard. She noted that she is opposed to the development and prefers that homes be built on the property in order to match the surrounding single family detached residences. 12. Commissioner Borup inquired whether there were plans for the property across the street. P & Z Administrator Stiles noted that the property is not annexed into the City. 13. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, have submitted general comments and site specific comments. Those comments are as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape imgation. 3. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Public Works Department. Fire hydrant locations shall be depicted on the preliminary plat map. 4. Sewer and water mains shall be extended to and through the proposed development. 5. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 6. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B. 7. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 8. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 9: Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to this site will be via an extension of the existing main in Danbury Fair Subdivision. Approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) generated by this proposed development. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of centerline. 2. Water service to this site will be via extensions of existing mains installed in Danbury Fair Subdivision and adjacent in E. Pine Avenue. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3. 100-watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 4. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas shall be submitted for review and approval with submittal of the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety will be required for the improvements prior to signature on the final plat. 5. This development is being proposed as a planned development under the conditional use permit process. One requirement of planned developments is that the total area of all common open space shall equal or exceed ten percent (10%) of the gross land area of the PD and that all common area contain improvements which are accessible and available to all occupants of the planned development. A total of 3,558 square feet is shown as a common area, which is 1,482 square feet less than required. In addition, drainage retention/detention ponds should not be considered as common open space because they are invariably more of a nuisance than an amenity. Applicant is to increase open space size to meet minimum 10% requirement and provide detailed plans of the drainage area for the City's determination as to suitability for inclusion as common open space. The design of the drainage area shall ensure that water is retained only during major storm events for a maximum 24-hour period. The City has been experiencing problems with groundwater in drainage areas, particularly those without an outflow to an existing drainage system. 6. Although the plat map indicates the rear building setbacks are 15' minimum, the layout shown and floor plans of proposed units would leave only a 10' rear setback. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) 7. When Maws Subdivision was originally proposed for annexation and subdivision, in approximately March of 1992, the application indicated that pressurized irrigation would be provided to all lots within the subdivision. Then in November of 1992, the Applicant petitioned Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for exclusion from the District and was successful. Was this done because there was, in fact, no water available to the property, or was it done to avoid providing pressurized irrigation to the subdivision? A review of City records indicates no variance from the pressurized imgation requirement was ever granted by Council. The City Treasurer is investigating whether well development fees were ever deposited for phases 1 and 2 of Maws Addition. If pressurized imgation is not being proposed, a variance from City Ordinance would need to be granted and appropriate fees paid for all phases. 8. The ordinance annexing this property, Ordinance No. 580, states that the property shall only have single-family, detached dwelling units constructed. 9. Revise the Preliminary Plat Map to show all adjacent land use and existing zoning of properties surrounding the proposed development. Show the location of the homes and the right-of--way line on the western side of Adkins Lane. 10. Add to note 3 that the drainage lot is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, and that a blanket easement is to be granted to the Ada County Highway District for the "Heavy Maintenance" of the drainage facility. 11. Adkins Lane should be shown on the plat as Adkins Avenue as this street section will be public and is not adead-end street. 12. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lot constructed, and road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to any building permits being issued. Landscaping shall be installed prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 13. The stamp, ,signature, and date, of the land surveyor is required on the preliminary plat map per the requirements of Idaho Code 54-1215-3. 10. Kenny Bower, Meridian Fire Chief, requires that all codes will be met, and that hydrants will need to be put in. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~. 11. Bill Gordon, Meridian Police Chief, noted that small homes create low income areas that need extra police services. 12. Jim Carberry, Administrator of Support Programs, of the Joint School District No. 2 submitted a letter which included comments that he notes the project is for only 9 residential homes. He cannot say if the development will greatly effect the student enrollments to the school district, but it comes down again the the growth factor. He did state the Meridian School District will grant approval of the request. 13. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a Land Use Change/Site Development application to be filed for review prior to final platting. Additionally, all laterals and wasteways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Imgation District. 14. Opal Farrington, and Mark and Anita Vives, submitted a letter of disapproval of the prod ect. 15. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. 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 property. 2. The City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6512 and pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ of Meridian. 3. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 4. The property is currently zoned (R-8) Medium Density Residential District. The (R- 8), Medium Density Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 4. as follows: (R~) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 5. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning And Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 67-6512, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use maybe in existence. 7. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 8. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 9. Section 11-2-418 C of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits. Upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would not be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance; the open space requirement for a planned unit development is 10%. 9-607 (G) (5) (e). The proposed project does not meet that requirement. The development plan does not address the issue of pressurized irrigation and there has been no request from the applicant in that regard. The annexation and zoning ordinance for this project limited all building to single family detached dwellings. The ordinance would need to be amended in order to permit townhouse construction on the site. The setback requirement for a backyard is 15 feet. The plan noted a 10 foot setback. There is a 50 foot frontage requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ The proposed plan noted a 45 foot frontage. The square footage requirement for a home is 1301 square feet. The developer is proposing 1209 square feet. c. The use would not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will change the essential character of the same area; see item (b) above. d. The use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. The use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; f. The use will create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; there has been no proposal concerning the use of pressurized irrigation or a well development fee proposal for this project. g. The use will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. The use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; and i. The development of the property will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be denied in this case. 10. It is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the previous comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) • Bruce Freckleton, be incorporated along with the following conditions if a conditional use permit is granted. 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 7-517. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with street development plans. 4. Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review by the Meridian City Attorney. 5. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. 6. Submit a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Meridian Public Works Department. 11. T'he above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 12. It is recommended that the request for the conditional use permit be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING - MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) ~ ~ APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CAL L COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED " COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED COMMISSIONER DeWEERD VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it deny the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application. However if the permit is approved the Applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: ~~ `z ~ DISAPPROVED: 6-8-98 -- Final FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15 TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING ~- MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-4) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this 1 st day of September, 1998. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED VOTED ~~a VOTED (~ VOTED_ (~ MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVE VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO.3 • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 APPLICANT: TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING ITEM NUMBER: 10 REQUEST: MAWS SUBDMSION N0.3 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FROM P & Z CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS REVIEWED SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~I~¢~I e ~s` ~ ~'"~ ~~ &~~~° BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; OTHER: WATER DEPARTMENT - REVIEWED All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. PLANNING AND Z~iNG COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1998 PAGE 27 other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the City upon notice of the applicant. de Weerd: I second that. MacCoy: Alt in favor. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MacCoy: Very good. Okay as you look at your agenda on item #8 and 9, they're going to be switched, they were placed inadvertently in the wrong direction, preliminary plat comes after we discuss conditional use permit. ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (7 TOWNHOUSES AND 2 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON 1.15) IN PROPOSED MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: MacCoy: Anybody have any statements for that? Smith: I have none. Nelson: I have none. de Weerd: I have none. MacCoy: What is our desire then? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. MacCoy: Do I hear a second? Nelson: Second. MacCoy: Thank you. (Inaudible) ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Nelson -yea, Commissioner Smith -aye, Commissioner de Weerd -abstain. MOTION CARRIED: 2 aye, 1 abstain.