The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 01-17MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1995,7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: (APPROVED) TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 7, 1995) 2. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO.2 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 7, 1995) 3. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 7, 1995) 4. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 7, 1995) 5. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2: (APPROVED) v6. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995:AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) ✓7. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: (DENIED) ,/8. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED) 9. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:(APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 10. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: (APPROVED) 11. AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) 12. AMENDED ORDINANCE #683 - LA PLAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK): (APPROVED) 13. FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L -O BY JOHN THOM: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AT FEBRUARY 7, 1995 MEETING) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) ✓20. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATION BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) /21. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: (AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVED) 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER 0 0 1. AGREEMENT WITH PINNACLE ENGINEERS FOR TULLY PARK: (APPROVED) 0 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA E TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1995,7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: ilprwecL 1. TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: 2. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: by 3. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: -1,1-kbie Feb. ?rz reeaes� �v a0'pl c� t 4. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: -bye an b '-efaeJf- by ale�4e12"-'e- 5. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDMSION NO. 1 AND 2: /v .6e 6. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995:AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: q�prov.e aet�e4r7)" 7. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: e?ee�y p-ei l 8. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: 9. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.3 SUBDMSION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: G/jp�ovz rPvi,�e��ra.2 p-F"af �nz�h'n�o f�af� c'��+�z�-ts 10. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: a pro 11. AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDMSION: 12. AMENDED ORDINANCE #683 - LA PLAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK): 13. FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: 0 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-0 BY JOHN THOM: a" Feh 7*=- h=l 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: d�,pi,z 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: l/i eelc: 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: (t/?� a /0-14u y fv t/{ f e //- 18. C18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: Cdy af/v� lv� yc%1cA 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIII IITED PARTNERSHIP: el -Of , ele 20. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATION BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: ,V,Vrove f/{ { e% 21. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: & PI -ore {/{ � c/L 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: �Q�Y.Geir,,enx Gam/ Qeian-'c('e �h�;1-u-t..�.Jrr {v+- ar+„ase� of �illt� Cd'ao,E-rfvr- — ��t.r� �und✓ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL -- -~- AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1995,7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: 1. TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXT�NSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: 1w 2. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL 6 s - ESTATES NO.2 SUBDIVISION: -p/4a-q�j, 3. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY y,2 t/7 PARK SUBDMSION NO. 5: 4. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO.7 SUBOMSION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: 5. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2: k, � Zpr / 3 TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995:AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS! I "7. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: �8. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: 9. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995; REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: oomw 10. TABLED JANUARY 3,1996: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: 11. AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: I I zr: P. oAo( -w- &99 13. FINAL PLA : ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: 0 41 1$ PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO� L�-�Q,�Y JOHN THOM: -T, , .nr ' '"9 ?moi �,.w- lwao � yyo Ctc,�J % 14' PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: ?? ? 1b PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: r -LGA, s v 1�. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER U OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: 1f PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: p REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATION BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: 2f. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: 21 DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 0 9 ?7 i s 0 9 I . 121- 3-a 0 0 I --------------- dp4m 0 -- ---- --- -lev N I 1 • Fj f W&Iwffki� r u MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1995,7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: 1. TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: U TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES N0.2 SUBDIVISION: 2 �d TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: 5. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUM ERFIELD -- -----SUBDIVISION NO.'rAND `2: - _ % m uv r 6.) TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995:AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS •� OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQ EST FO GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: afwa-f ,- �cn e�ll�rn�r,G Gll�fkd - TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN d (t� SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: 8. \ TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (,17� FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.3 /� SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: �9. TABLED JANUARY 3, lwo-ANAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE ATICHERRY LANE NO.3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMEN . felt' A TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: AMENDED ORDINANCE 0617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: AMENDED ORDINANCE #683 - LA PLAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK): 13. FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON 4- CORPORATION: Pv CO I • PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-Q.BY M-. 4c&v. ��►Q arm+ - � l�c.ann, Q do b do djbrtLv ycmi-glplp�Cuvt 40 4 �ObePune� ��PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: fle;j?�,IE5rE0 J0 BE W ITM DR-A*J t 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD4ppMf-i f� RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: ,ate 4o �I- rau � wp� coca, a vi r e,% j1� Iz/w—r %v Rb.7e4, 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING 4RACES FO,R FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: (CAI a-Nw-s-&A4o pup &A w%,j,- j' R'b. -7 kof& •) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST F R A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST:/Leguea�- W�°r 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY "EST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: I 20. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATION BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: I € UEST F£3R-A C-ONDIT#®NAk-fJS MIT= -FO A DRIVE THRU BANKING -- FACILITY BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 0 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,1995,7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS W C ' `^5' MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3, 1995: 4 y3 "`of.'#n wti, foo. FF/CC � wnncx. -i zowin} I nohpm(;.«• pl.+a4 r .1 by GA.'. TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994:�STVBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST -_4 ' _ FOR EXTENSION OF KE CREEK SUBDIVISION: -}0 2 - 7 Bc M 4"j +o 2'7 v,t3 , J-► two► ^6) 2. TABLEb JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL . �}ESTATES NO.2 SUBDIVISION: 3. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: 4. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO.7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: 5...- TABLED JANUARY 3,1995 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD f t'" ^---"- - "`- OFLAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN �oVb; SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: RT Ml -6byww FF/LL �- 7. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUNS s Yw„�, s* i d+v. •,wr SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS:,P'T,*%o c4 K� (w, t f) 8.. TABLEDONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUES�OTHE�LAKE AT CHERRY AND I LANE N0.3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT. `"' � l ')*'r' 9. TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.3 SUBOMS16N BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: L -r +v -ww+ 10. TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION' - v AdopfcA 11. AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: ajj.4o . 12. AMENDED ORDINANCE #683- LA_ �P+LAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK). 13. FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: VIM R7 -b o -L " (mJ • �,AJk4rbi w~L Y .3 s °A�M v 63pp' • 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-0 BY JOHN THOM: Cdn 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A v GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: *Vo-el Co % yr. 1 3.. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUR 4� �EJp OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACESZOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET-BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST' 91102 6r +u . �, 4°f�o Hw c. s 1 W� wryFbNww:w.1 � 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT( 4ym + MA AGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST EIMITED PARTNERSHIP: / 1 OJ'� „ti. �� • �o Zyd F�` /3;lfy Tfnk F.r40004.d'. WMfac l.Kw(A"Y1 AWL �...�.,.. ��0__ REQUEST OR A CONDI O_NAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING- J BUSINESS-OPERATIONJ-BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER -- -A } iv'rot i. b4°„ is Ma v. itic TunANKING-=- -- FAC ILITY'BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: ---- — —_ wM k7' 22. - PPARTMENT REPORTS: — --- -- W4' VMY.. -- W[ fo p-.y, 176 six 30 . ., n JIa("').,A /L'I 1 F�h.r,,rQllw✓ �+ ° J'�/ �O gin �AoI' R�-ly� pfL AN) n0 Wc'�� • La.. � ^ / nn,, nt Z r haw ,u-i-vr wM; ��-}'' "�' M ,Y G l MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 17,1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Tim Lenberg, Diane Beaulieu, Violet and Herb Bann, Wayne Forrey, Leonard Ruff, Steve Jensen, Bev Donahue, Bill Brewer, Doug Campbell, John Wasson, Kathleen Weber, Charles Koerner, Arnold Stubblefield, Helen Alidjani, Roy Brown, Gary Farnsworth, Hal Degrande, Billy R. Strite, Karen Gallagher: MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: The motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held January 3, 1995. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: Arnold Stubblefield explained the changes made to the preliminary plat, that the plat map was the same but there were changes regarding the landscape strips and there was more land put into the landscape strips; that there was twenty feet all the way around the subdivision; that there was a sidewalk on the south next to Turtle Creek. Councilman Corrie requested that there be an extension until February 7, 1995 so that Shari Stiles could look at the changes. Councilman Morrow questioned whether there was a change in the lot depth and had questions pertaining to the lot depth and the landscape easement; he stated there should be another public hearing and there was a lot of "grey" area; he additionally stated that the City does not have a preliminary plat. Arnold Stubblefield stated they would allow the map to stand as it was; that there has been three public hearings already. The motion was made by Councilman Corrie and seconded by Councilman Yerrington to table the issue until the February 7, 1995 meeting. There was a discussion. MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 Nea ITEM #2: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: The motion was made and seconded to table the Development Agreement for Tuthill Estates No. 2 Subdivision at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. 0 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: The motion was made and seconded to table the Development Agreement for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5 at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: The motion was made and seconded to table the variance request for The Landing No. 7 Subdivision at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2: The motion was made and seconded to approve the Development Agreement and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign it. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: Councilman Morrow steps down due to a conflict of interest. The motion was made and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea The motion was made and seconded to approve the decision as written. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 3 ITEM #7: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: The motion was made and seconded to deny the Preliminary Plat for Grove Run Subdivision. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Councilman Morrow resumes his seat. Moved by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Yerrington to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea It was moved and seconded to approve the decision as written and to grant the street frontage variance. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Moved by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Tolsma to approve the revised Final plat for The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 meeting all staff comments. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: The motion was made and seconded to approve Ordinance #689 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 4 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: The motion was made and seconded to approve Amended Ordinance #617 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: AMENDED ORDINANCE #683 - LA PLAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK) The motion was made and seconded to approve Amended Ordinance #683 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Gary Smith and Shari Stiles reviewed their comments. The Developer, David Turnbull, has no problems with staff comments. The motion was made by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Tolsma to approve the final plat for Ashford Greens Subdivision conditioned upon meeting staff conditions. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-0 BY JOHN THOM: Helen Alidjani testified before the Council and requested that the public hearing be continued on February 7, 1995 so she could have time to prepare. There was no other testimony. The motion was made and seconded to continue the public hearing at the February 7, 1995 meeting. 0 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 5 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: The applicant requested that the application be withdrawn. ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: The motion was made and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea The motion was made and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare an annexation ordinance. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: Leonard Ruff, the architect for First Interstate Bank, testified before the Council that the landscaped easement reduces their space and they could only get 22 parking spaces; that this was a hardship on the Bank. No other testimony was taken. It was moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the next meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: Roy Brown testified before the Council and explained the need for the variance. Gary Farnsworth, 1991 Turnberry, was sworn by the City Attorney. 9 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 6 0 Farnsworth: Good evening Mayor and Council members, as life long members of the City of Meridian we appreciate the way the City adheres to the codes and keeps the lots whether they be commercial or residential in some kind of uniform standard. I am as we were discussing earlier the owner of Mega Car Wash which is lot #2 that abuts on the west side of the lots that Brown and Company own. If I understood what Mr. Brown said there is no easement on the east side of the lot between myself and the Maverick. When we built we adhered to the standards without asking for or getting any exceptions from the City and put in a landscape strip of 10 feet between us and the Maverick. A lot of my concerns on this would be the fact that a lot of it is traffic flow. Around the west side of the car wash there is 20 feet of my property up to the property line. And that is used quite regularly as flow from the front to the back and the back to the front of the car wash. Some people prefer to drive around the end of the build and use the vacuums first and then go in and wash their car. Or if the bays happen to be full of people, it just gives us the flow back there that we really like. Another concern would be the safety of it, if we restrict that area over there and allow the cars where they can't drive that way they are going to start using the bays themselves to drive from the front to the back. A lot of people come in there and they have their children with them, they pull in and the kids get out and stand on the corners of the bays. I am just afraid sometime that somebody may go racing through one or 2 of those bays and one of those kids will just step out from behind a pillar just a couple three feet and we could have a very serious problem there. I have talked to Arden Davis who as you all know handles the commercial development for Idaho Power. He voiced some concerns on this too, the power which I supplied and financed to go into the lot for that whole development there runs right down that property line between lots 2 and lots 3. He has said that Idaho Power at a minimum likes 5 feet on either side of that power line. I think that some of the concerns that they had as far as not being able to come in and move the power or reroute the power past that. So I guess that, those are my biggest concerns on it and I would just like to see that we develop the commercial ground there adhering to the lines like everybody had and I think it would keep everything neat and uniform and the safety concerns should be eliminated. And in that light I would like to see the variance is denied. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Farnsworth? Come: Mr. Mayor, Gary let me make sure I understand what you said here now. From the comer of your west side of the car wash 20 foot is your property in, so the 20 foot further west is still on your property. Farnsworth: That is correct, approximately. Corrie: And then it starts No. 3. 0 • Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 7 Farnsworth: That is correct. Kingsford: Then is that power supposedly right on that property line? Farnsworth: It is within a foot or 2 of it. They run it intentionally down the property line. The gentleman, it was Max Boesiger that had the property before that sold it to the Brown's, and he had to sign an easement with Idaho Power to allow them to come in and also for future use on the power line in case there is a problem with it. If you have, as Councilman Tolsma mentioned earlier, you get the buildings right up there if there is ever a problem with that power there is absolutely no way that Idaho Power can work on it, repair it, replace it or whatever is needed. That was Arden Davis's concerns with it too. Tolsma: If you were to add onto the west end of your, what (inaudible). Farnsworth: That is something I am glad you brought up, I forgot to put it in my notes, on top of the concerns that I have already mentioned, it hems the property in an awful lot. Where the Brown's have 2 acres to deal with I am restricted to just what I have, the property that I do have down there. In answer specifically to your question, a bay is 17 feet from center to center which there would be time in the future that we might consider that. That is way down the line, I am pretty much landlocked as it is. The only reason I can see with moving everything clear over against my property line would just be to allow 10 feet more profit on the west side for REB Trust. Kingsford: Any other questions for Gary? Morrow. I think I would make a comment with respect to your testimony is a little inconsistent in terms of adding on because then certainly the Brown's are entitled to your people not driving on their 10 feet. They are held to the 10 feet and if you take another 10 feet of your property that leaves it 10 foot out a way for your cars to drive through. Farnsworth: We have, like I say, we don't have any intention. Councilman Tolsma's question was how much was the width of a bay. I would have like to have acquired more land there and expanded but the fact that we are hemmed in now we are happy with what we have. In the future we will move on and maybe or maybe not build one somewhere else. We have really enjoyed the car wash business it is myself and family that run it. My daughter Jennifer who is my number 1 car wash attendant. Kingsford: Any other questions for Gary? Anyone else from the public? John Wasson, 1486 North Silverado Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. 0 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 8 Wasson: I live in the house that will be directly behind lot 3 1 think. We are just off set by the car wash that the gentleman owns. My self and some of my neighbors are concerned with several questions as to what kind of industry or commercial business should actually be located at that site. We are concerned with the traffic behind the building, the noise level that it will cause, the type of building that will be constructed. Is it going to be for example a pizza place, a dentist office something like that, because that may have a great impact on trespass across our property which we are already having a problem and which has been voiced to the Chief of Police and the Police Department. But for that reason we request or I request that no decision be made on this variance until REB Irrevocable Trust comes forward and states what kind of plan that they are going to put forward to build at that site. Additionally, the building that they place in there may or may not have a impact on the property value of the homes directly behind that. So for that reason request to know what is going in there before a variance be changed. Kingsford: Any questions? Corrie: Mr. Wasson, you said your house was directly behind it, is there a fence between you and that? Wasson: Yes there is, it doesn't seem to stop anybody from the age of about 10 to 32. We are concerned, you know people crossing our lot illegally but I am not sure that absolves us of any liability should somebody in there trespassing. Kingsford: Any other questions of John? Anyone else? Brown: Let me visit first with Gary's comments. We were aware that the power line went under the ground, if you remember my original comments was that we are not suggesting that we build right on that property line for that very purpose. The set back off the property fine would determine that actual power line running through there. There is some question apparently at this point that it would have to be set back far enough that Idaho Power could get to the easement if necessary. But in respect to that Idaho Power has no easement across that property at least none is recorded on the deeds. Apparently it is an agreement that was made or understood that when they run that power line through there that they would have access to it. Which we agreed to there is not a concern with us with that. Then as far as driving around the property Gary's comment, I am sure that he would agree with this, he is not suggesting that he drive on our property he is suggesting that he drive on his own property. The property that he has there is adequate for driving around, if he should add another bay to his property than that would have to be addressed at that time either by him or by you gentlemen if he was asking for some kind of variance whatever the case may be. But as far as our part is concerned one of the concerns that we have is you can't drive effectively on 10 feet. So what you have done by putting those interior set a Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 9 • backs you have made 10 foot wheat patches or whatever down the sides of these buildings so there is no way, they can't be utilized, there is nothing that you can do with them other than you can't drive on them obviously, you can't park on them. So we feel it is a more satisfactory solution to be able to set those buildings over a little bit and utilize the property and still leave plenty of room for the easements that Gary was talking about. He made a comment relative to the fact that we bought 2 acres of ground and we have plenty to use and we are crowding Gary. That is certainly not true, that was never our intent we are simply trying to utilize the property as best we can. True we bought the 2 acres of ground and we paid a lot of money for 2 acres of ground if you will pardon me saying so. Let me comment on Mr. Wasson, I assume his name was Wasson. The property itself in total including the Maverick, including Garys property, the property behind us has a wood fence completely across the back of it and up the west side to the road. The fence I assume is a 6 foot fence, at least it is a standard height fence. I cannot be penetrated by child or anyone else unless they drive through it or whatever the case may be. The property has a 39 foot easement across the back of all 5 of those lots including the Maverick and the lots that we acquired. There is an easement across there that can't be built on. The utilities are in that, the purpose of that easement is to allow ingress and egress for all of the property and the tenants to go out the back of the property onto Linder, they would be going west onto Linder Road. That is the only access that there would be some of the properties to Linder Road. That crosses the back of Gary's property and the back of Maverick's property as well as the back of our property. That is available to all persons for all 5 lots. So I don't think the concern that Mr. Wasson expressed I am not even sure what he was really talking about as far as people climbing or going back and forth because you can drive back and forth. First of all there is no room back there, it is just mud except for Gary and the Maverick. But needless to say there will never be access or easements from the back of this property to the residential property. It is blocked off, there is a church on one side of it and there is residential that backs the lots of 4 and 5. So hopefully that might help. Kingsford: Dealing with children I suggest that you watch your statement of saying it is not penetrable by children. That doesn't happen. Anyone else from the public? Wasson: I would just like to respond to one of those comments that the gentleman made. The type of industry or building that is placed there makes a great deal of difference as to trespass. Children are not going to jump normally a fence to go to the doctor's office, children are going to jump a fence to go to a pizza but or a video arcade or whatever. Additionally, I am not sure if anyone is familiar with the fence construction but you can easily put a foot through that fence and walk through it, that is nothing that kids don't do hundreds of times a day across the nation. But a 6 foot fence with lower and upper backing is not difficult to climb by anybody. Thank you. 0 9 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 10 Kingsford: Anyone else? Hal DeGrange, 1450 North Silverado Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. DeGrange: In regards to being a resident just south of Lot 3 1 believe, kind of southwest of the car wash. Our concerns as a resident are very serious in regards to security, my neighbor to the north of me, Mr. Joe Carlton has already had an intruder, juvenile, that had been scared from his home not too long ago. Unfortunately he was away from his home, we have had problems in the past with people juveniles jumping the fence, jumping 2 fences to get to the Maverick store. In regards to John Wasson's question as to regards of what type of facility is being erected here. We are concerned with something that is pleasing to the environment to the neighborhood is 3 smaller professional buildings with the necessary landscaping between these 10 foot easement versus some larger Burger King or something along these lines. I think John's question was very viable, myself and the residents are certainly opposed. I speak for myself and my wife, we are opposed to this variance. We feel that a large building actually allows larger shadows for the individuals who we find that loiter during high school lunch hours behind the church, the parking lots are used for people joining up for lunches and sometimes a little drag race, cookie spinning in the parking lots this kind of nature where 3 smaller buildings definitely sheds more light to the travel ways by local authorities to find anybody lurking in the shadows. And to Mr. Brown's comment, yes we do have a security problem in that corner section of the neighborhood and that is a very viable concerns of the residents. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Farnsworth: Mayor and Councilmen, the one point that Mr. Brown made, I just couldn't help saying something. As far as a 10 foot wheat patch there if anybody has been out to Mega Car Wash, and 1 hope you all have, the set back that I had on the east side of the building of 10 foot is not a 10 foot wheat patch, it has extruded curbing, it is landscaped, it is watered, it is grassy it is nice, it is a beautiful thing to look at in the summertime and even this time of the year. So we are not just dealing with just a 10 foot strip of weeds down through there. As far as the access there on the other side I do have the 20 feet there which is asphalted and there is room there for a car to go back and forth through there, even if there was a building right up against on the property line. Although I think there was a building on the property line there some of the visibility would be impaired driving through that you really have narrowed the access through there and the visibility again for the safety reasons I mentioned. If you had that other 10 feet you will do what I did with it and landscape it, you have more visibility and it is going to look really nice. Thank you again. Kingsford: Last call, I will close the public hearing, Council members. 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 11 0 Morrow: I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the request for variance from the 10 foot interior set back by REB Irrevocable Trust, all those in Favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or their designee to speak first. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite here along with Avest in support of this application. We are in receipt here of the staff comments and appreciate the support there as well. We have an unusual circumstance here in our beliefs where we have an accessory to a principle permitted use which is not allowed by out right use. The unit is an (inaudible) part of this permitted use. We believe as an industry standard it is certainly to the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of security. I think from that standpoint the variance is certainly a necessity. The variance was predicated upon the original conditional use which under the development agreement as I understand it and Council could probably comment, this became a variance to the use as opposed to part of the original conditional use. With that if you have any questions I would be more than happy to answer them. I think it is a pretty straight forward approach and certainly would attempt to answer any questions you may have. Kingsford: Any questions of Mr. Strite? Crookston: I just have one, what kind of living structure would this person have? Strite: Mr. Mayor, Counselor, we are proposing a 1200 square foot unit that has 2 bedrooms, a small office area which is the support unit for the mini -storage giving visibility to and from as well as security to and from the units them selves. If I could and certainly to make this public record if you would like, if you notice the large parcel there in the back this is certainly a small parcel, this being created for the resident manager and his staff 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 12 E has already been advised and we are working with the Ada County Highway District this is going to flip flop and in lieu of being presently adjacent to a residential use here commercial use here and commercial use on all sides we are flipping it and it is going to commercial on all 4 sides. So I think with that again I would be happy to answer any questions. Kingsford: That residence then would be access to the interior through the parking lot? Strite: Mr. Mayor, that residence will be accessed by the loop road that is going to be proposed (inaudible). Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Seeing none 1 will close the public hearing. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I might add a comment to Walt's comment about the swimming pool, there was a water problem out there wasn't' there. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of lawfor the variance for the resident manager housing unit by Avast Limited Partnership. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the variance request to allow resident manager housing unit by Avast Limited Partnership, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #20: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATION BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: Kingsford: At this time I would invite the Skinner's or their designee to address the Council. Not present, they knew that they were on? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Did you advise them that they maybe should be here? (Inaudible) 0 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 13 Kingsford: Shari can you speak to this issue? Conditional use permit for plumbing for the Skinner's plumbing shop? Stiles: Basically they are taking an existing building there on Ada Street, next to Tates Rents and want to tum that into an office, not a contractor's yard or anything like that, just a plumbing business office. They will be coordinating their road way improvements with Borup Construction who also has submitted a conditional use permit right adjacent to them and I believe Tates is going to have a, they were considering adding on that they could do those improvements for that length along Ada Street. Kingsford: Shouldn't this have been a public hearing. Stiles: Not in Old Town. Kingsford: It is in Old Town, but don't we require a public hearing at least at Council? Stiles: No, there is only one public hearing required and that is at P & Z. Kingsford: So they did have it at P & Z? Stiles: Yes Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have a question if it is heard at P & Z and a public hearing there do we just simply vote to validate P & Z's findings? Kingsford: Or to tell P & Z you didn't like what they did one or the other. Morrow. So maybe from that perspective they didn't figure they needed to be here. Kingsford: Any questions of P & Z's action, Mr. Hepper is here if you would be interested in addressing questions to him. If you had any questions of Mr. Skinner you certainly could table it until (inaudible). Morrow. My only questions would be our Planning and Zoning requested a more detailed site plan, so that it could be coordinated with the City staff with respect to the other properties. My question to him would be would he provide that to our staff so that can be done. I don't have any problem with the use or approving or validating what P & Z did. I would like to see it tied down a little bit. Kingsford: Would it be your pleasure to table or to condition it upon that? u Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 14 Morrow. I just assume condition the approval on the performance of those things. I don't see them as major issues, it is a matter of him having somebody or drawing and cooperating with our City Engineer and our City P & Z so I would move that we approve the conditional use permit for a plumbing business by Lynn and Ken Skinner subject to compliance with staff conditions. (Inaudible) Morrow. Well that is the staff condition on the memorandum dated December 11 th, which am sure have the Skinner's seen that was it forwarded to them? Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the conditional use permit for a plumbing business operated by Lynn and Kenneth Skinner conditioned upon or subject to the compliance with staff conditions, is that correct? Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. Does that require that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions also or does that one motion take care of both? Kingsford: You need to approve of the findings. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for P & Z. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as drafted for P & Z, roll call vote. ROLL CAL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: A motion to announce the decision of the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application and the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and City staff. 0 i Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 15 Kingsford: Is there a second? Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision for the conditional use permit that includes the compliance of staff recommendations, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #21: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: Is there a representative? Would you come forward sir and make your pitch on that? Ruff: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this conditional use application was previously heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is now before you, the only comment I want to make at this point in time is really a question. If in your findings of fact the recommendations from Ada County Highway District are the original ones dated I believe the 5th of December or the revised findings dated December 19th. The issue is whether or not Ada County was recommending construction of a median or granting the option of the widening of the street and construction of a left turn lane into the subject property. Kingsford: I am sure that their findings would be based on the most recent. Ruff: The copy of the findings that I received had the original Ada County Highway District recommendations dated December 5th. Kingsford: And you are saying there have been some subsequent findings? Ruff: Right, I don't know Counselor if you remember that public hearing there was some interpretation, clarifications on the highway district's standards for the off sets between driveways and left turn lanes. On December 19th Ada County issued a revised set of recommendations which basically gave the bank the owner the option to construct a left turn lane instead of constructing a median which would prohibit left turn traffic into the site from East Corporate Drive. Like I said the copy of the findings that I received last Friday from the staff had incorporated the original recommendations from Ada County. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, the Planning and Zoning Commission would not have had the December 19th comments, they met the 13th of December. 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 16 Kingsford: So there would be revised findings for the Council, are you suggesting? Crookston: I think you can move to amend the findings to include the December 19th comments of the Ada County Highway District in place of the December 5th comments. Ruff: The only difference being the option of constructing a left turn lane. Which the bank has already notified the Ada County Highway District of their intention to pursue that option with the cooperation of the developer. Kingsford: What about the fact that we are going to require you to have parking where you would otherwise have this drive thru? Any other questions for Mr. Ruff? Thank you, Council, you have heard the request is there a motion? (Inaudible) Kingsford: You would have to amend the findings and approve those. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Amend the findings to include the December 19th ACHD requirements. Morrow. I have a question of Karen who is here and represents ACHD, could we have her comment on those amended findings from the District. Are you familiar with those. Gallagher. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, at the Planning and Zoning Commission I tested at that point that we discussed the fact that we were trying to resolve this issue. It was understood at that point that we would get revised comments back to them by the end of the year. Kingsford: December 19th reflects those revised comments? Gallagher: That would be correct. Morrow. And so it was agreeable with the district to do the left turn lane? Gallagher: That is correct, that has been approved. Kingsford: Thank you Karen, any other questions? Is there a motion? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z and that they be amended to include the new findings of fact and 0 Meridian City Council January 17,1995 Page 17 conclusions of law from ACHD dated December 19th, 1994. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for a conditional use permit for a drive thru banking facility by Callison Partnership and to amend those findings to include the ACHD's revised findings of December 19th, 1994, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the conditional use permit? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move that we (inaudible) Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the conditional use permit for a drive through banking facility for Callison Partnership, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #22: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Chief? Gordon: Nothing Mr. Mayor. Kingsford: Mr. Smith? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I just have one item. We have a proposal from Pinnacle Engineers to do some preliminary site engineering for Tully Park. And they have presented a proposed service and fees through Councilman Tolsma and I would like to have your permission, your authorization to proceed with this. What they are proposing to do is to do some additional site topography surveying and to prepare a preliminary site draining plan and this preliminary plan would determine final required elevations for site. Considering the existing and proposed greenbelt pathway and they would calculate estimated quantities of earth for both cut and fill. And this would give us some indication as to how much fill we need in the area. At this time we do have some sources of fill that F -r -I L-A Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 18 are coming up from construction in the City. There is a strong chance that we could get enough fill material that we would need without any cost. Their proposal amounts to $1130 and they would bill on a time and material basis. Kingsford: Is that not to exceed? Smith: Yes sir, once this information is done and we review that then we would get into a preparation of final plans that would have construction, actual construction grades, elevations. There would be bid documents prepared and construction surveying would be part of that final document or final contract. Tolsma: (Inaudible) and some other construction projects out here (inaudible). Smith: The Highway District is also looking for a place to dump their sweepings for the sand and their maintenance people called me today and wanted to know if I knew of a place and I said I think I do. But I am not sure how much we need and where exactly. I would like to be able to. Kingsford: Let's get is swept real quick and put it out there. Crookston: I have a comment to make on where they can put the sand, out at the golf course in their sand traps. Kingsford: Particularly #5, the right hand one, I would like to put a little mud out there. Smith: They did tell me their sand has a few gum wrappers and etc and it is not real clean. Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve of Pinnacle Engineering? Yerrington: I make a motion to approve of this expenditure. Morrow. I have a question with respect to that. Tolsma: I will second it. Kingsford: Discussion Walt. Morrow. I think the motion ought to include the $1130 and not to exceed phrase. Kingsford: I think that is what their proposal has, it specifically says that. You have heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 19 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Gary? Smith: No sir. Morrow: I have a question Mr. Smith, on Cherry Lane determinations been made yet as to where the sanitary northeast comer of the development? Smith: No sir they have not. by the Lake No. 3 have those sewer main goes through the Morrow. And we approved it earlier this evening, and those negotiations are on going? And you don't perceive any problem with it? Smith: No sir I think they will put the sewer where I tell them to put it and obviously Mr. Aschenbrenner has told them they can't put it on his property so they are going to have to make some adjustments. I will work with them as much as I can but I am not interested in putting the City in a position where we have difficulty in maintaining the sewer line or accessing the sewer line for maintenance. It is also an issue of security with what they proposed to me initially. It is kind of a blind alley type of a thing and I don't think the Chief of police has seen it but I don't think he would be very receptive to it. So that issue has not been resolved. Kingsford: Probably will be before plat signature. Smith: Absolutely yes sir. Morrow. If you need any support from us we will give it. Smith: Thank you I appreciate that as always. Kingsford: Mr. Hepper left, Counselor? Crookston: I had previously advised the Council that the Fourth Judicial District Court is still thinking about having a court here in Meridian. The discussion before has lead to work with the legislature to resolve that. I am just wondering just to let you know that at this juncture that order will go into effect on October 1, 1995. 1 think that we need to be doing something with it. That is all I have. Kingsford: I would urge the Council to all contact your particular district legislators and get f� Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 20 them interested in doing something in court funding rather than to put it on our burden. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think it is more the legislature, 1 think the law is reasonably clear. The courts have the power to demand the City to give them space. It is the relief we need to seek in the legislature. (End of Tape) That would be an issue I would think but still as I looked at Mr. Beck's bill that would be incumbent upon the legislative and executive branches of government and not necessarily the judicial branch, Counselor am I correct in that assumption? Crookston: You are. Kingsford: Anything else Wayne? Crookston: No Kingsford: Mr. Morrow? Morrow. A couple of things, on is it is fairly obvious that we have the construction started on Cherry Lane finally. We will be the prime general is Boise Paving and Asphalt, there will be biweekly neighborhood meetings. They will be conducted at the job shacks that are at Jim and Jean Fuller's property. Someone from the City probably Gary Smith will represent the City, any of the Councilman or neighbors are free to attend that. With respect to the fill Mr. Smith, that is already committed to Fuller Park from that site. That pretty well takes care of that. Kingsford: I hear a conflict of interest. Morrow. You are right, we were first by 2 or 3 weeks. (Inaudible) Kingsford: How much fill do you guys need out at Fuller Park. Morrow: About this half of the state, I don't know a bunch, it is one of those on going things where we need 2 or 3 major. Kingsford: You take the asphalt we will take the top soil. Morrow: No that isn't the deal at all. The final thing is that we had our transportation Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 21 meeting last Thursday, we will be having those minutes ready for you to review and we will need to do a public hearing at the City Council level to adopt those as the transportation plan for the City of Meridian for 1995. Kingsford: I would like to again publicly thank you for your efforts on behalf of the City on that Committee you do a great job there. Mr. Yerrington? Yerrington: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Corrie? Corrie: Yes, I would like to thank Mr. Yerrington for bringing the resolution of the AIC to the meeting, I wasn't here last time. Thank you I appreciate that, that is all I have. Kingsford: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Clerk? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Shari did you have anything? Stiles: No I have nothing. Kingsford: Entertain a motion. Corrie: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 22 APPROVED: ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,CLERK i The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Tim Lenberg, Diane Beaulieu, Violet and Herb Bend, Wayne Forrey, Leonard Ruff, Steve Jensen, Bev Donahue, Bill Brewer, Doug Campbell, John Wasson, Kathleen Weber, Charles Koerner, Arnold Stubblefield, Helen Alidjani, Roy Brown, Gary Farnsworth, Hal Degrande, Billy R. Strite, Karen Gallagher: MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1995: The motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held January 3, 1995. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED NOVEMBER 1, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: Arnold Stubblefield explained the changes made to the preliminary plat. rCouncilman Corrie requested that there be an extension until February 7, 1995 so that Shari Stiles could look at the changes. Councilman Mo AGGFR Arnold Stubblefield r--� Y• The motion was made by Councilman Corrie and seconded by Councilman Yerrington to table the issue until the February 7, 1995 meeting. There was a discussion. MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 Nee ITEM #2: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: The motion was made and seconded to table the Development Agreement for Tuthill Estates No. 2 Subdivision at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: amw tli4 --a-4 ter , 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 2 The motion was made and seconded to table the Development Agreement for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5 at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: The motion was made and seconded to table the variance request for The Landing No. 7 Subdivision at the applicant's request until the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2: The motion was made and seconded to approve the Development Agreement and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign it. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: Councilman Morrow steps down due to a conflict of interest. The rr� Von was made and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea The motion was made and seconded to approve the decision as written. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 3 11 The motion was made and seconded to deny the Preliminary Plat for Grove Run Subdivision. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: TABLED JANUARY 3,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Councilman Morrow resumes his seat. Moved by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Yerrington to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea It was moved and seconded to approve the decision as written and to grant the street frontage variance. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: REVISED FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Moved by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Tolsma to approve the revised Final plat for The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 meeting all staff comments. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: TABLED JANUARY 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #689 - DANBURY FAIR ANNEXATION: The motion was made and seconded to approve Ordinance #689 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea 9 0 Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 4 ITEM #11: AMENDED ORDINANCE #617 - ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION: The motion was made and seconded to approve Amended Ordinance #617 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: AMENDED ORDINANCE #683 - LA PLAYA (FORMERLY BRANDON CREEK) The motion was made and seconded to approve Amended Ordinance #883 with suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINAL PLAT: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION, 54 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Gary Smith and Shari Stiles reviewed their comments. The Developer, David Turnbull, has no problems with staff comments. The motion was made by Councilman Morrow and seconded by Councilman Tolsma to approve the final plat for Ashford Greens Subdivision conditioned upon meeting staff conditions. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-0 BY JOHN THOM: Helen Alidjani testified before the Council and requested that the public hearing be continued on February 7, 1995 so she could have time to prepare. There was no other testimony. The motion was made and seconded to continue the public hearing at the February 7, 1995 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council January 17, 1995 Page 5 ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY LARRY STOKER: The applicant requested that the application be withdrawn. ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF ACHD RIGHT OF WAY BY RAMON YORGASON: The motion was made and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea The motion was made and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare an annexation ordinance. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE�'v" NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: 9s � Leonard Ruff, the architect for First Interstate Bank, testified before the Council tha they could only get 22 parking spaces/ No other testimony was taken. It was moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the next meeting. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET -BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JIG BUILDERS ANNEXATION AND ZONING GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on December 15, 1994, 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 City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council 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 15, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 15, 1994, 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. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 6 6 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is five acres in size; the property abuts and is west of Locust Grove Road, and it is north of Doris Subdivision, a subdivision of lots of one acre or more. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed zoning is, and the use would be, R-8 Residential with development of 36 single level town house duplexes in 18 town house buildings; that an Applicant's representative stated there would be a six foot privacy fence going around the entire exterior. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially; that the residential property to the south is in Ada County and not the City of Meridian and it is developed with 1/2 acre or larger lots; that the property to the north is zoned R-8 as is the property to the west; the property to the east is in agricultural use but has recently been rezoned to C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial and is for a planned commercial development. 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, and the record owners are Grant B. Richards and Carrol D. Richards; the Applicant has an agreement to purchase the property; that the owners of record must consent to this annexation prior to final FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 6 0 action being taken by the City, if annexed and zoned. 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 entire 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-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is not for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is as stated above. 10. That the Applicant did submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed; that a representative stated Applicant was going to build town houses and that the development would be similar to one that he had done in Boise, at 1515 Silverton Lane; that at the City Council hearing Steve Jensen testified as representative of the Applicant; he stated that there would be 36 townhouse units, they would be owner occupied, that they would not be limited to senior citizens, that this was an infill development, that the findings and development agreement would be met, that they would submit plans for privacy fences, that he had a question about "add screen", and that perimeter fencing would be installed. 11. That comments were made from the people attending the hearing; the comments were as follows: a. Don Bryan testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that he would like to see some fencing and water FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION monitoring; that the fencing should be put up before construction to keep the trash enclosed; that he wanted to know what was going to happen to the ditches; that he was apposed to the project; before the City Council he stated that he had a problem with the density, that it was worse than R-8 single family, that there was too much traffic, that there was a water pressure shortage, that he was concerned with entry on to Locust Grove Road and wanted to know who was going to take care of that matter, that animals were going to be a problem and that he does not want people to come to his animal, that water was his biggest concern, that they have no water, that the Avest ditch used to serve his land, that he does not want the well on the subject property to be used for pressurized irrigation but wants them to use Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District water and later testified that the City needed to be careful with this application and the application of Avest and that there was no access to surface water. b. Eric Anderson testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that he was concerned about the density and that there was a privacy issue; that he was concerned over water pressure; that there was going to be a lot more traffic on Locust Grove Road; that this would cause a loss in property values. C. Kathleen Coulter testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed street was not as big as other streets; that she was concerned about the property values, the setbacks and the water pressure. d. David Baley, the Applicant's engineer, testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that there were 36 lots with two non -buildable landscape lots; that it was an infill project; that there is existing sewer but there is still a question about the water; the street width was 46 feet of right-of-way, 36 feet of roadway and five feet of sidewalk on each side of the street; that the units would have two car garages and are single story units; that the minimum square footage was 1,228 square feet; that they would be built as town houses and each unit would have separate power and water meters; that the lot size is 4,250 square foot. e. Steve Jensen, a realtor for the Applicant, testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that they would be single level units targeted for a senior citizen market; that there would be restrictions as far as the use of the dwellings; that there would be a 6 foot privacy fence FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 9 around the entire exterior and that everybody's backyard would be privacy fenced as well; that they were meeting all of the setback requirements; that the smallest unit would be 1,228 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms; that the three bedroom unit would be 1,406 square feet; that both would have 22 foot wide garages; that the covenants would restrict parking on the streets; that rentals of the units would not be restricted. f. Scott Stewart testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that there was a market demand for the proposed units; that seniors generally do not have two vehicles. g. Jay Jones testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that he lived on lot 9 of Doris Subdivision; that he would not like to see the application approved; that he was apposed to it on the basis of density as well as the difference in property values; that the project doe not suit the particular needs of the area; that if it was approved it should be a senior center and meet the requirements of a senior center; that he had a real concern with the setback in that the proposed town houses would be close to his back yard. He additionally testified at the City Council Hearing that four units would abut his property, that they would be 60 feet from his house, that Carol Subdivision has a density of .75 to .50 units per acre, that he was worried about declining property values, that there were no covenants to say the development would only be for seniors, that the size of the units was too small, that there needs to be a better buffer than a six foot fence, that he wants more distance between his property and the development, and that this has a greater density than Gem Park; he later testified to the City Council that in the previous findings of fact it may have addressed the need for recreation facilities or added space in this kind of development, that he had not seen anything in there for recreation, the landscaping is shown to be very minimal, and there is no area for parks; that if development does go forward, he requested that they put in their covenants that the units be owner occupied and that he would not mind seeing that it be restricted to a seniors only development. h. Lane Mortsen testified at the Planning and Zoning Hearing as to opposition to the project. i. Pat Sanford testified at the Planning and Zoning Hearing as to being concerned about the property values and that she was apposed to the project. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION j. Kim Daniel testified at the Planning and Zoning Hearing about opposing the project on the basis of the water issue. k. Scott Dixon testified at the Planning and Zoning Hearing that he was concerned about the property value and the water issue. 1. Fanita Stewart testified that she wanted to be sure that the Developer was not interested in putting sewer through the cul-de-sac on Willowbrook to this development M. Liz Gwin testified that there was a problem with the density, that it was not a proper transition, that there is stock in their subdivision and she wanted it known that they can have stock, and that there would be problems with their wells if the well on this property is used. 12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full by this reference. 13. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that of particular note in his comments is that the legal description needs to be prepared by a certified registered land surveyor pursuant to Resolution 158; that the high seasonal ground water needs to be determined; that a conceptual engineering plan needs to be submitted; that the ditches need to be tiled; coordinate the placement of fire hydrants with the water department; he had comments on the street width; he testified at the City Council Hearing that Avest, the developer of the land east of Locust Grove Road was aware that they have to supply irrigation water to this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION ! 9 land, that there are some low water pressure zones in this area, and that sewer may need to come from Willowbrook to serve the Doris Subdivision. Additionally the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted comment that a variance was required on the length of the cul-de-sac, that perimeter fencing needed to be installed prior to applying for building permits, that the plat needed some additions, that there needs to be additional buffering (landscaping) as well as fencing to help protect adjacent properties developed at lower densities, and that a development agreement was required as a condition of annexation. 14. That the Police Chief commented that high density population areas need more police services and that the long one way in and out is not the best. 15. The Fire Chief commented that the wider street will help significantly; that there was no place for a second access; and that a pedestrian pathway might work. 16. That Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Ada County street Name Committee, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power and U. S. West submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 17. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. That in the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, 5. MIXED -PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Mixed -Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 9 Avenue Plus areas North of Fairview Avenue, it is stated: These areas are within Ada County, but nearly surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is characterized by large lots, and a sparse development pattern. In order to stimulate planned development in these areas, the following policies apply. 5.16U All development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned and compatible land uses are desireable for this area, including low -to -high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land uses. 5.18U Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land -use development in this area. Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. 18. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 20. That the property is to the north of, and abuts, Doris Subdivision, which is developed with lots of greater than 1/2 acre up to 1 1/2 acres with single-family houses; it is to the south of, and abuts, Gem Park Subdivision; it is east of, and abuts, Settlers Village Subdivision; both Gem Park and Settlers Subdivision are R-8 zoned subdivisions but developed with single-family houses; Doris FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 • Subdivision was initially developed in the late 1950s and 1960s with developing continuing into the 1980s; that the subject property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 21. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) 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 (2) 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. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in detached houses in that zone; that the Applicant is not planning detached single family houses but is planning single story town houses with a minimum square footage of 1,228 square feet. 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Map, at page 21, states in part as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 23. Under Land Use Goal Statement, General Policies, at page 22, it is stated in part as follows: 1.4U "Encourage new development which reinforces the City's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas." 24. Under Land Use Goal Statement, Residential Policies, at page 23, it is stated in part as follows: 2.3U "Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents." 2.5U "Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." 25. Under HOUSING, Housing Policies, at page 67, it is stated in part as follows: 1.13U "Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single-family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Increased densities on random vacant lots should be considered if: a. The cost of such parcel of land precludes development at surrounding densities; or b. Development of uses other than single-family structures are compatible with surrounding development. C. It complies with the updated Comprehensive Plan." 1.14U "Design and performance standards should be applied to infilling development in order to reduce adverse impacts upon existing adjacent development." 26. 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 but the land is approximately one mile from Old Town. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 JIG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 0 provide for school services to current and future students. 29. 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. 30. 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 (101) wide." 31. 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 (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 32. 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;" 33. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 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." 34. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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. 35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the City Council were given and followed. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13 JIG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 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 City Council 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 City Council 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, which is not the titled owner and the Applicant shall obtain the consent of the titled owner and file it with the City; 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 9 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant would be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property would be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant would be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement would address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, pressurized irrigation; that the development agreement would, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee 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. 10. That it is concluded that the plan for development and the requested zoning for all of the land is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the Meridian Comprehensive Plan does FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 15 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 0 indicate that the area is a Mixed/Planned Use Development area, but that does not necessarily mean a higher density area. 11. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the City is to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, maintain compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower -density development in outlying areas, encourage infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, and single-family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Since the Comprehensive Plan states as above, it is concluded that the R- 8 zoning and townhouse development is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the property should not be annexed when development does not meet the above goals. 12. That it is concluded that the existing residences in the area in Doris Subdivision, Gem Park and Settlers Village Subdivisions abut this development and need to be buffered by transitional densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R-3 or R-4 lots, or lots that have less density per acre; that it is not the City's intention to plan the plat for the property but the way that it is proposed to be zoned and plated now does not fall in line with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing residential FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 16 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 0 lots are not buffered and the development as represented would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. 13. Therefore it is concluded that the annexation and zoning Application would not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 14. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. That proper and adequate access to the property is not available and a variance is necessary to allow the length of the cul-de-sac. 14. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns; that the consent of the titled owners to annexation and zoning would have to be submitted prior to annexation; that if their consent is not given the land shall not be annexed. 15. That it is also ultimately concluded that the Application for annexation and zoning should not be granted unless the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 17 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 9 0 Applicant submits a plat and development plan that meets the comments contained in paragraphs 22 through 25. 16. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does not desire to meet the above requirement regarding a new plat and development plan the property should not be annexed; the Applicant should be given until the next City Council meeting, February 7, 1995, to inform the City if a new plat and development plan will be submitted; that if a new plat and development plan is submitted, Applicant shall have to meet the Subdivision and Development Ordinance notice and hearing requirements. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED4-� COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 18 JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION 0 DECISION 0 The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the property shall not be annexed and zoned unless the Applicant files a new subdivision plat and plan that meets the comments of paragraphs 22 through 25 of the Findings of Fact; the property shall not be zoned R-8 or greater, in any event, as those densities are not compatible with Doris Subdivision; if the Applicant does submit a new plat and development plan and a request for zoning that meets the newly proposed development density, it shall be subject the Subdivision and Development notice and hearing requirements and to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. If the Applicant shall not meet these conditions, the Application shall be denied. MOTION: /�✓� APPROVED: v/ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW JLG BUILDERS - GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION DISAPPROVED: Page - 19 +� # ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RAMON YORGASON ANNEXATION AND ZONING ACHD RIGHT OF WAY A PORTION OF 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4, SECTION 1. T. 3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY WATERBURY PARR SUBDIVISION # 5 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on November 9, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and having duly considered- the-mattert:the_4lanning:-and Zoning_ Commission makes the -------. - following-F-Indings-o£-Fact, . and.Conclusions -of _Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for November 9, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the November 9, 1994, 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. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 • 0 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that this strip of right-of-way was excluded in the annexation and zoning of Waterbury Park Subdivision; that the property is located within the City of Meridian; that the general location of the property is on Meridian Road and approximately one-half mile north of Cherry Lane. 3. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 4. That the entire 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. 5. That there was no written or oral testimony submitted. 6. That the City Planning Director, City Planning Director, City Fire Department, Central District Health submitted nc comments. -- - 7. That propernoticehas been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and zoning Commission have been 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 Title 50, Chapter 2, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-417 of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW page 2 Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 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. - -- -7.- That the -annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, and -the --City.-- — 8. That the annexation and zoning is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE SHEARER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VOTED VOTED VOTED Page 3 COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) Is VOTED VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: qwl-e-k U41 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this day of off COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) 1 / APPROVED �/ DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1994. VOTED VOTED VOTED[ VOTED VOTED 6 * ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE R-4 STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT OF 80 FEET FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on December 6, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having 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 plat for Carnelian Subdivision was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for December 6, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 6, 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 11-2-410 A, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and Coverage Controls, requires that the street frontage in the R-4 Residential District be Eighty (80) feet; that the property is 0 9 zoned R-4 Residential. 4. That the Applicant has requested to be granted a variance from the above street frontage requirement; that the Applicant has taken a lot of approximately 19,000.00 square foot lot and split it into two lots, one with street frontage of 56 feet and the other with 54 feet; that both lots would meet the minimum square footagre requirements of R-4 lots of 8,000 square feet. 5. The entire property in question is described in the subdivision application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. That the Applicant is the property owner. 7. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the variance application; that the Meridian Fire Department commented that the variance was fine with it. 8. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that the variance request was unclear; that a 19,000 square foot lot does not exist; she recommended that the configurtion shown on the Final Plat be accepted in accordance with the conditions of that approval and that a variance of the frontage, for lots 16 and 17 of Block 2, only, be granted. 9. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the City Council 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 of the proposed subdivision to owners of property within 300 feet of the external 0 0 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. 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 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 0 0 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 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. 7. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that there was only one lot and now the Applicant would have two lots; that the Applicant could have initially platted the property as now requested and requested a variance at that time or platted it such that all lots would have 80 foot street frontages; that the remaining in the proposed subdivision lots do have 80 foot frontages; that it would be in the best interest of the City to grant the variance. 8. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2. it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the R-4 street frontage Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable in that the two new lots do meet the minimum 8,000 square feet of frontage required in the R-4 District and only lack the required street frontage of 80 feet. 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, but it does make reasonable sense to grant the variance where the minimum requirements of the R-4 District are met except for the 80 foot street frontage requirement. C. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the street frontage requirement or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That it is concluded the Application for a variance should be granted. 10. 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 MORROW VOTED. COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED ]! COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION That it is decided the variance from the R-4 street frontage requirement of eighty (80) feet is hereby granted for lots 16 and 17. APPROVED: P DISAPPROVED: CITY OF 1V HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN$ IDAHO 83642 NAME: RECEIVED .IAN 1 7 1995 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET CITY OF MERIDIAN PHONE NUMBER: -------------- ---------- ---------------------- ---C-14-gi-c----40-4vk--------------=-------------------- -----------------=------ CITY OF MERIDIAN HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN; IDAHO 83642 NAME: JAN 1 7 #3`1';; PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET CITY OF MERIDIA PHONE NUMBER: /c- 7e-1 %o!✓_Lp-------------- -=----------------- -----2��=� � NO. 689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land lying in the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 7, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center 1/4 corner of section 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M. thence North 89°07104" East along the East-West center of section line which line is also the centerline of East Pine Street, for a distance of 661.88 feet to the Southeast corner of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said section 7, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; S'J thence North 0°06100" East along the Easterly line of /�� said West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 for a distance of 956.99 feet; .. ...._ _ thence South 89007104" West for a distance of 441.95 feet to a point on the centerline of Five Mile Creek, said point being a point on a curve on said centerline; thence 20.76 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 220.00 feet, a central angle of 5'24'28" and a chord distance of 20.76 feet which bears South 34°38'33" West to a point of tangent; thence South 36°12'09" West along said centerline for a distance of 162.14 feet; thence South 0°45119" East along said centerline for a distance of 367.20 feet; ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 1 thence South 38°17100" East along a portion of said Five Mile Creek centerline for a distance of 558.17 feet to a point on the East-West center of section line; thence North 89107'04" East along said center of section line for a distance of 197.16 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 10.04 acres more or less. ALSO INCLUDING A parcel of land being lots 1, 2, 8 and a portion of lot 7 of the EASTSIDE ADDITION to Meridian as same is shown on the plat thereof recorded in Book 4 of plats at page 158 of Ada County Records, said parcel located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: commencing at the Northwest corner of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M. said point being the Northwest corner of said Eastside Addition to Meridian and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89°36107" East along the North boundary line of said SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and said Eastside Addition for a distance of 1297.07 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way of North Locust Grove Road and also being the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of said Eastside Addition; thence South 0000100" West along said right-of-way line for a distance of 650.08 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 2 of said Eastside Addition; thence South 89021151" West along the south lot line of said Lot 2 for a distance of 668.94 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 7 of said Eastside Addition said point being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Adkins Street; thence N. 0°02'01" East along said Westerly right-of-way line and the East lot line of said Lot 7 for a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 89021'51" West for a distance of 180.00 feet; thence South 0002'01" West for a distance of 125.00 feet to a point on the South lot line of said Lot 7; thence South 89°21151" West along said South lot line for a distance of 448.94 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence North 0°04101" East along the Westerly boundary line of said Eastside Addition for a distance of 655.47 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 2 0 0 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING containing 18.93 acres more or less. Including a strip of N. Locust Grove Road Right -of -Way being 25 feet in width adjacent and parallel with the easterly boundary of the above described tract of land. The easterly side of said strip also being the East boundary line of said Section 7, and centerline of N. Locust Grove Road. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-8 Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. 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. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. C. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters. d. 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. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 3 0 0 Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this Igt/- day of January, 1995. APPROVED: R -- GRANT P K O ATTE Tpp WILLIAM G. BERG, QFRr CITY CLERK ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 4 0 STATE OF IDAHO, ss. County of Ada, I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE," passed as Ordinance No. 689, b the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the day of January, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ��day of January, 1995. STATE OF IDAHO,) County of Ada, ) Clerk, C. County, Ic On this 17�'11 day of January, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. „vest# SEAL No r 0 Public for Idaho esing at Meridian, Idaho Commission Expires ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 5 GJ f. c lL C Clerk, C. County, Ic On this 17�'11 day of January, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. „vest# SEAL No r 0 Public for Idaho esing at Meridian, Idaho Commission Expires ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 & 7 Page 5 w EASTSIDE Y j�e_OK DR ADDITION b . H9 °21000 W. 448A4' NO. 11 J p�dFtc, �I iL 1 !Uft Iz o', l m l �, m yLi -------- I � W Z � I ---- 3'JN3H3N -S "p4 -- LU Q� Icc ;WI ,tv's5^�'�„1 ,'6oA•N° r I rl N m' ' F � e ju p 0] 3/ly MWhS N - N i i' i it / . Oy t 1S.M Cy 1 i LIAI ►z A at dL t ZE__.-iii 9t St .� ?J a a if Or OL st a at t Ge ez c cl zt o a -. a n �QI at K �+ w —1 p~p ,I • ° - u -ft az az zz cs K sz oz �+ EL an - O Z Z O I;p°JILL4 P1 > • AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 683 AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T.3N., R.0 ., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 6; thence along the west section line of said Section 6, N 0025'30" W 1004.09 feet (formerly N 0°01130" W 1004.13 -- feet) to a point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 89034130" E 235.70 feet (formerly EAST 204.30 feet) to a point; /thence thence Northeasterly 31.82 feet (formerly 31.84) feet 0 along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having f a central angle of 52°05'30" (formerly 52007100"), a radius of 35.00 feet, and a long chord which bears N 63031'45" E 30.74 feet (formerly N 63°56130" E 30.75) feet to a point; thence N 37°29100" E 48.84 feet (formerly N 37°53'00" E 48.79) feet to a point on the centerline of 5 mile creek; thence along said 5 mile creek centerline the following courses and distances: N 53014127" W 81.93 feet (formerly N 52050127" W 79.99 feet) to a point; N 6034'09" W 224.11 feet (formerly N 6°10'09" W AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LA PLAYA Page 1 225.61 feet) to a point; thence leaving said centerline N 88°25'12" E 1095.77 feet (formerly N 88°44'30" E 1095.83 feet) to a point; thence S 0°14100" E 328.21 feet (formerly S 0010100" W 330.00) feet to a point; thence S 88°20100" W 66.00 feet (formerly S 88°44'30" W 66.00) feet to a point; thence S 0°14100" E 571.82 feet (formerly S 0°10'00" W 571.82 feet) to a point; thence S 87°52'00" W 100.72 feet (formerly S 88°16'00" W 102.06 feet) to a point on the centerline of said 5 mile creek; thence along said 5 mile creek centerline the following courses and distances: N 65040'46" W 91.10 feet (formerly N 65°16'46" W 91.18 feet) to a point; N 53014'27" W 886.26 feet (formerly N 52°50'27" W 886.26 feet) to a point; thence leaving said centerline S 37°29'00" W 49.60 feet (formerly S 37°53'00" W 49.55 feet) to a point; thence Southwesterly 86.37 feet (formerly 86.41 feet) along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a central angle of 52005'30" (formerly 52°07'27"), a radius of 95.00 feet and a long chord which bears S 63031145" W 83.43 feet (formerly S 63°56'30" W 83.46 feet) to a point; thence S 89°34'30" W 235.69 feet (formerly WEST 204.28 feet) to a point on the west section line of said Section 6; thence along said west section line N 00°25'30" W 60.00 feet (formerly N 0°01130" W) to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-8 Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LA PLAYA Page 2 0 • annexation and zoning; that all ditches, canals and waterways shall be tiled including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. 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. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. C. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters. d. 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, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LA PLAYA Page 3 • 0 within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Amended Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Amended Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by�/the Mayor of the ! City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this / y4- day of January, 1995. APPROVED: ATTEST: 411,?zt - - - �-, e-� 7 � �- L, 1 2: CITY CLERK -- WILLI . BERG, JR. STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) � VJ `-dy YyV rvi.r �. .Y p'j ti's wwx w 'l1 � muzr I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Amended Ordinance entitled "AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LA PLAYA Page 4 LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 6, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; passed as Amended Ordinance No. 683 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the l 2 �z day of January, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this day of January, 1995. 11 i�ty Clerk, City of s" i,ar � $ , A4a County, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO,, s= - .• a. County of Ada, On this X746 day of January, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. SEAL blic for Idaho at Meridian, Idah sion Expires 8,2 AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LA PLAYA Page 5 JWOppBlplY DRIVE v ♦ s 1 1 a ♦ 16- � 11 • 1• 1{ is a 11 19 ILL1♦ � 1. 1a 1q 13 21 E. SUBDIVISION \ �224,.I1 pW �q3 7 27 • alt s la • 10 ad u 2 13 a_ n r. 11 23 1 14 1! ♦ 12 i a♦ Iwo Ka STOW ao 1 & a 1. 13 14 1S a 17 Is t9 20 212 _ 1R2� • s e8'� Clo — 6.3'I°211'oo"w.4q.6o Aw. cow1 got" 40E.. lo 5rc� 12 ------------------- -- T_. 0 r ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALLISON PARTNERSHIP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 210 EAST CORPORATE DRIVE MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through the Applicant's architect, Leonard Ruff, ,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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 13, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 13, 1994, 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. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - CALLISON PARTNERSHIP Page 1 i 9 3. That the property is zoned C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for drive through banking which the application requests. 4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409 -B. -_- 6. That the property is in the Central Valley Meridian Corporate Park, in which there are many business located and probable many more to come. 7. That the abutting properties are used for commercial and business. 8. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 9. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - CALLISON PARTNERSHIP Page 2 10. That the City Planning Director, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACRD), Central District Health Department, and Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That the site specific requirements of ACHD were to locate the access point on East Corporate Drive at the east boundary, as shown on the site plan having a width of 25 -feet, provide a deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund at the District for the cost of a 105 -foot median in the center of East Corporate Drive, and direct lot or parcel access to the East First Street is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. 12. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. 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 grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - CALLISON PARTNERSHIP Page 3 0 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances 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; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. -- The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - CALLISON PARTNERSHIP Page 4 0 s Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 6. That the drive way for drive-in window shall not be used for deliveries ntetr shall it be allowed to impose or impede on other uses in the area. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED, I COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED 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 Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - CALLISON PARTNERSHIP Page 5 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this l 7� day of �A, 19qk 5 61 ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVED DISAPPROVED VOTE VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -�"�� .�1 -/;Z L C 'C/d vh /C/�i 7, GL" (f1z rib • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SKINNER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLUMBING 34 EAST ADA STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing- scheduled for December 13, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 13, 1994, 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. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 1 0 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of plumbing office which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 12. as follows: (OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi - public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is not a specifically allowed use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409; however 11-2-407 D. 1. provides as follows: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to an compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional uses.an allowed conditional use in the R-4 district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 6. That electronic equipment and supplies, lumber yards, cabinet and door shops, and other similar business are allowed as conditional uses in the Old Town District. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 2 7. That the property is in an area that is being converted from residences to business uses. B. That sewer and water is available to the property. 9. That the City Engineer did not submit comments but if he does they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 10. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted site specific requirements which were that Applicants dedicate 25 - feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ada Street, construct curb, gutter, 4 -feet of sidewalk and match the paving on Ada Street with improvements being constructed to a 37 -foot back-to-back street section, and constructing one curb cut a maximum of 30 -feet in width. 12. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and the Meridian Fire and Police Departments submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that the Applicant is to ensure any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles are properly screened in accordance with City Ordinance, that the Applicant should prepare a more detailed site plan and coordinate with City staff to ensure parking, landscaping, sidewalk, etc. are in compliance with City Ordinances and should coordinate street and sidewalk improvements with adjacent property owners. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 3 13. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances 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; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 4 • 9 b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the Planning and Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with. 6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must be met. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Electrical Code, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 5 9 Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 8. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed, and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. That the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and 04e approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED �7�`/ VOTED -0 QQ VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Con lus ons of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SKINNER PAGE 6 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this % day of leu' 199+x: r COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) ��/� APPROVED VOTED VOTE VOTED* VOTED VOTED— OTED DISAPPROVED— DISAPPROVED FINDINGS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 617 AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1, OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A tract of land situated in Government Lot 1, of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as follows: Commencing at a found brass cap monumenting the Northeast Corner of said Section 3, thence along the Northerly line of said Section 3, said line also being the centerline of Ustick Road North 89°06,49" West a distance of 285.88 feet to a set steel pin, said pin being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said northerly line South 00°24,24" West a distance of 153.00 feet to a set steel pin, Thence South 89°06,49" East a distance of 30.12 feet to a set steel pin, Thence South 00°24,24" West a distance of 127.97 feet to a set steel pin, Thence South 47°56'24" West a distance of 444.20 feet to a set steel pin, Thence South 33°02113" East a distance of 808.00 feet to a point, Thence South 54°47158" East a distance of 100.00 feet to a point, AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 1 Thence South 89°36'36" East a distance of 56.00 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Section 3, said line also being the centerline of Ten Mile Road, thence along said easterly line South 00°24'24" West a distance of 59.17 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 1, Thence leaving said easterly line and along said southerly line North 89°02100" West a distance of 1320.93 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1, Thence leaving said southerly line and along the westerly line of said Lot 1 North 00°26'04" East a distance of 1367.32 feet to a point on said northerly line of Section 3, Thence along said northerly line South 89°06'49" East a distance of 1034.38 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4 Residential; that the reason for the R-4 zoning is to allow 92 single family dwelling units on the parcel which would be an approximate density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre, which would be allowed in the R-4 Residential zone; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning; that Applicant pay any development fee or transfer fee if adopted by the City of Meridian; as a condition of annexation and if not paid the land shall be de -annexed. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: 1. Plat the property as submitted by Applicant, designate on the plat that only single-family dwellings shall be allowed, and allow only single-family houses of at least 1,800.00 square feet, as agreed to by the Applicant, within the subdivision. 2. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 2 that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. 3. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property and connection to Meridian water and sewer lines shall be made. 4. Construct streets to and within the property. 5. Dedicate the necessary land from the centerline of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads for public right-of-way. 6. Allow only houses of at least 1,800 square feet. 7. Pay any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City of Meridian. 8. Enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11- 2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H. 2, K., L. and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities, a school site or fees in lieu thereof, and that land be set a side for a future park and relating to development of a greenbelt along Nine Mile Creek and co-ordinate with the Pathway Plan of Ada County. 9. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to de -annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and also be personal to the owner and Applicant. Section 4. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Amended Ordinance. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Amended Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 3 • 0 passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this � day of January, 1995. ::1:7:1:101VD10 F MAYOR -- GRANT P. KING F ATTEST: CITY CLERK -- WILLI ERG AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 4 Y a�J r;e 9, AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 4 STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM BERG, City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Amended Ordinance entitled "AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; passed as Amended Ordinance No. 617 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the �* day of January, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this �t-day of January, 1995. STATE STATE OF IDAHO,) County of Ada, ) � aJ On this 17 F, W ^".1y' of January, 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM BERG, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. re— IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. j1,�r of raar,r `J SEAL'' 'rr as rraaaaasnaa°°tl ling at Meridian, Idaho /i°OM iniS5i0., eaG�irls o8lo-2/9y AMENDED ORDINANCE - ENGLEWOOD Page 5 --Zi- _ _ _------------------------ _____- --------------------- -------------- - --------------- E' , • • '• i• . , • x x , �\ Nm .rtYi.• n i sa. � » x C its u n • �/ \` ••� \� �•• � ,rt;. 12 I • • ^ r m s • � `\ • \ is •�1�y'6oila a a 1J `\\•� , r tea. •� a �2t�ic6 N • �t • n � ENGLEWODh G�EIc F\\ �. A l m r r r • ui a � � a � i A � p �j•r'J4°4l'3B"E Ico: m A m m N Y 1 • •E'�Y SI Bi"OV �°E.�JVi f I' II THE _`� CHEF LANE T Nowm egoo2' • ;A A I I o 0 0 0