Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 12-15• • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM I-L TO R-15 FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LMNG CENTER BY BEDELCO INC.: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; DENIED) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY DIANE AND ROBERT LANG: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JOHNATHAN GIBB: (APPROVE FINDINGS OFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDMSION NO, 5, S, AND 7 BY B.W., INC.: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDMSION NO. S, 6, AND 7 BY B.W., INC.: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GROVE RUN SUBDMSION BY JLG BUILDERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDED FINDINGS) • • 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDMSfON BY JLG BUILDERS: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 3,1995 MEETING) 10. REQUEST FOR SEER AND WINE LICENSE TRANSFER BY PASTOR RAMIREZ: (APPROVED) 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 20,1994) 12. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CANVEST (VAN AUKER): (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOT REQUIRED) 13. MOE ALIDJANI: PRESENTATION ON RECYCLING PROGRAM: • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 1994 The Special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Anna Doty, Bill Gordon, Wayne Forney, Mark Smith, Dale Newberry, Gary Lee, Joe Simunich, Chris ~Iliams, Roen Wilson, Ron Thurber, Dan Torfin, Ruth Crow, Steve Jensen, Jay Jones, Fanita Stewart, Elizabeth Gwen, Don Bryan, David Bailey, Pastor Ramirez, Moe Alidjani, Gloria Oren, Scott Stewart, Doug Campbell, Mike Wardle, David Turnbull: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM. I-L TO R-15 FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LIVING CENTER BY BEDELCO, INC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite anyone from the public to make testimony and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Wayne Forney, 52 E. Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forney: Mayor and Council I want to give you a hand out of some of the background policies in the Comprehensive Plan that have helped (inaudible) the project that we are going to present to you tonight and I will be going #hrough that in the presentation but would ask that it be included in the findings of fact end conclusions of law and 1 guess the public record. Let me start with a little background about the developers, the name is Bedelco. Ingsford: You have just one copy Mr. Forney? Forney: Yes Mayor and I will be showing it up on the screen for the public tonight. Bedelco Inc. is owned by 2 native Idahoans, 2 great men, Ed Bews and Burt Smith. Burt Smith grew up in Council and Cambridge area and Ed grew up in Meridian and Eagle. IN fact he is a graduate of Meridian High School. They have developed projects in the Treasure Valley for probably close to 40 years. And quite a number of projects in the Meridian are. In about 1978 or 1979 they acquired this property near Locust Grove and Pine Street. It has been zoned industrial !think since it was annexed by the City back in 1979. And for many years they have tried to market that and if they found that a tot of businesses looked at it but the parcels were so large it was very difficult to market that much industrial ground. So, thinking about all of the history of the project, looking at your current Comprehensive Plan, the zoning and development ordinance, talking to businesses to citizens, to neighbors out there, we sat dawn and spent quite a bit of time analyzing what the needs would be in the community and how it would relate to this property. So I am going to walk you through a bit of a slide presentation here to acquaint you with the property and also some of the background. And also show you the actual • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 2 Bedelco Business and Living Center. Do the lights need to be dimmed or can everybody see that? Kingsford: is the audience able to see that, we can. It appears alright. Forney: In this slide I took these photographs and I am standing near the railroad tracks on Loaast Grove Road looking north and also a little west. In the background you see that nice new cedar fence that is the Maws Addition subdivision in the background. This is looking more westward, all of this is in the Bedelco ownership. Those trees and homes that you see in the background is part of the old town Meridian that has crept out this far east and this property abuts those homes and trees there. This is part of the old farm operation and about the enter of the property. And this is the home and home site that is owned by the Collins family, Mr. and Mrs. Collins on Pine Street. And the Bedelco property wraps around the Collins property. This is on Idaho Street at the end of Idaho looking east. Beyond those pastures right behind that yellow traffic direction sign is the Bedelco property. This is Pine Street looking east, Bedelco property starts about where that car is on Pine Street and these are just some of the homes and the type of homes that abut this property. Now that property is zoned light industrial and there are a number of permitted uses allowed by the City of Meridian things like public utility yards, recycling plants, solid waste transfer station, asphalt and concrete, those types of uses are allowed on the property today by zoning. One thing that we did before we really got started in analyzing what was an appropriate way to develop that property is we started talking to small business people and also people looking for work. People that were looking for jobs that expressed an interest in our economic development survey. And 1 surveyed businesses and people that are interested in working in Boise, well all of Ada County essentially but Meridian, Kuna, Eagle, Garden City. And based on the survey input that we had from the business owners and also the people that work for employers we developed some basic goals of how to meet the needs of business and also people looking for work. What we found, and people defined quality of life in 3 key things. Number 1 was jobs, often times we think of quality of life perhaps as bike paths or parks that type of thing but the survey tha# we conducted the number 1 thing people said td us way jobs. That was one of the first things we focused on in the Bedelco Business Park. The second factor identified in our research in terms of quality of life was housing. We got 2 components of that from the employers they indicated there was a lack of affordable housing for their employees. And for people looking for work they indicated that housing was critically short in the affordable range and it would take sometimes 2 and B jobs in one household to ~ able to afford a house payment. The third thing that came out was safety and that would be public safety the ponce and fire. We sat down with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and we went through each goal and policy that would help shape the Bedelco proj~t. Let me just point out a few. I did hand this to the City Council to get into the public record, but goat 4 is to provide housing opportunities for all economic groups Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 3 in the community. Goal 3.1 U is to improve quality housing projects that meet the needs of all economic levels. 3.2 encourages efforts to maintain quality neighborhoods and housing which are recognized as basic infrastructure requirements of economic development. And we found that is very true when we surveyed business owners and particularly small business owners they were not as concerned with water, sewer, access t hose things that we typically associate with economic development they were concerned about getting. housing for their employees and attracting employees. Not having employees work in another county like Canyon County or Gem County and to be able to live and find a job in Ada County. In the land use area, 1.450, encourage a balance of uses to ensure that Meridian makes a desirable, stable and self-sufficient community. 3.11 zoning and development within each of the industrial review areas. and this project is within the eastern industrial review area of the City of Meridian, but in that area projects should be analyzed to ascertain if there are potential problems or cor~licts which would hinder the development of these areas by private industrial and business interests. What we found was that the large lot concept was not working. There are just tpo few businesses that can afford to buy an 8, 10 or even 5 acre industrial parcel. Th'e majority of the market is small, wanting small lots. The growth then in the business is in small business. In land use goal statement 3.14 the character site improvements and type of light industrial development should be harmonized with the residential uses in the area. All around that area, well I shouldn't say all around, on 3 sides there are residential uses. On 2 of those sides, the north and the west there are established neighborhoods. So we knew that we had to blend with the homes that are already there. In terms of the economic development goal statement 4.4U help existing small businesses expand employment market opportunities, that again reinforced the small lots. This is the last of it, I will be quick. Housing 1.3 an open housing market for all persons shall be encouraged. Housing statement 1.4, the development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged so that was another policy we thought well the businesses are telling us they need affordable housing. Here is a project where we ought to be able to combine business and affordable housing in one project and make it close. Housing goal statement, City of Meridian shall ensure that there is no discriminatory restrictions that are imposed by local codes and ordinances. The neighborhood identity goal, adopt land use designations which allow for housing opportunities for all income levels within neighborhoods. And then goal statement 6.9U establish strategies for low and moderate income housing opportunities including neighborhood area plans, senior housing and specialized housing needs. And then the last one here 6.11, promote well planned and well designed affordable housing in all Meridian Neighborhoods. Going through the survey process, talking to businesses, talking to people That were actively in the job market, looking at your Comprehensive Plan this is the concept that we came up with. That dark gray stripe that you see running north and south is the proposed Locust Grove Road extension. It could be named something else, the e~asting Locust Grove Road is on the far right of that colored area and that is where it exists today. Initially when we Meridian City Council becember 15, 1994 Page 4 first submitted this concept to the Ada County Highway District they indicated that they did not want to have 7 access points for business, 2 on Pine and 5 on the new Locust Grove ex#ended. We documented that in fact in the City of Boise those separations and those numbers of acxess points are being approved everyday and they did not realize that they were in fact asking Meridian to have less of an opportunity for business grpwth than Boise has. Once we presented our case #hat the developers in Boise were able to have tha# many access points and we wanted the same opportunity in Meridian to have a level playing field they said okay. What you see there now has been approved by the Ada County Highway District in terms of the number of access points for the business on Pine and Locust Grove. The business lots are shown in the orange color, the affordable housing is shown in yellow. ~I of that information in terms of the comprehensive plan the zoning analysis survey we felt that meets with all of the needs of business of people of the comprehensive plan, sensitivity to the neighborhood, all those factors. We made some mistakes along the way, but at least I hope you understand that we put a lot of thought into this. In terms of land use intensity in the planning profession industrial uses are always regarded as the most in#ense. Single family homes are the least intense use of the land. By shifting some of that industrial ground to affordable housing we feel that we have actually helped the neighborhood by reducing the intensity of some of the uses in that area. So it is more compatible with the existing homes particularly Maws area on the north side of Pine and the homes immediately west of the Bedelco project. There is a lot of documentation, this was an article in September about housing is scarce for seniors particularly in Meridian. We met with Tom Enoway of Treasure Valley homes, they sell quite a few manufactured housing units in the valley. And he presented information to the Planning and Zoning Commission stating he felt based on his experience that about 60% of the units in a project like this would be occupied by elderly. And here is a documented housing need in the cx-mmun'rty. So this even may help with the senior center housing as well as starter housing for workers in the entry level or lower paying jobs. Now, the concept is to allow R-15 zoning and that is the zoning request we have before you that a portion actually about half of the Bedelco ownership at the time we applied, they have since sold off I think 15 acres. At that time there was a concept of about half industry and half affordable housing. If we can have R-15 zoning your zoning ordinance would allow manufactured housing. The most affordable housing that we know of short of a mobile home, that is not wha# we want to do it is manufactured housing. This happens to be a manufactured unit out at Meridian interchange on the south side of the interstate. Here is another one, you see the entrance there. These are sitting on the sales lot right next to the interstate now. And they do have some variety of entrances and motifs and most of the units will have a door like this where a garage can be added on. Your zoning ordinance allows a 2 car garage to be added onto these units. Across the street from the Bedelco Business Center this is an existing home on Pine, it is a very nice home and it has a detached 2 car garage. In some of the lots there may be a detached garage just likq this across the street or it could be attached. And you saw the door on the back of those Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 5 manufactured homes that would allow an attached garage. They will all be on foundations that was the question that came up during the planning and Zoning Commission meeting and yes absolutely on the same foundation as any other structure in the City. There is documentation that manufactured homes use less electricity and that is positive and that is also encourage in the Comprehensive Plan. I hope you can see that, this is Pine Street at about West 15th, almost Linder Road. I think it is called Weathervane Subdivision and this is an area that has R-15 zoning that does have some manufactured housing. This is a lady I spoke to that just sold that house, well about a month and a half ago sold it for appro~amately $70,000. When you look at the income levels of Meridian and you take the federal definition of median income or 80% of median income $70,000 definitely falls into the affordable housing category, but yet that home looks very nice. These are units right next to that one where the lady was walking in her driveway and these homes are very attractive and affordable homes and they are manufactured homes. Here is that same culdesac looking more towards Linder Road, the high school is in the background area. The lots that we are proposing are SO feet wide minimum with a 90 foot depth minimum. There are a lot of lots that are 65 by 100 even though your ordinance would allow a 55 foot wide lot, the developers feel that is not wide enough so we are going to go to a 65 foot lot minimum. This is at Idaho and 15th, here is another affordable home in that same area and it is very attractive. Now this is looking back to the north and you see a fellow there by the for sale sign sweeping his garage floor. He is actually living in a stick built home and in the background farther to the north is manufactured housing. They are blended in Weathervane and that is the same concept that Bedeico wants to use letting the builder decide if it is stick built or manufactured. The criteria here is in your R-15 zone the minimum house size is 1000 square feet. That is the difference here between the R-4, the R-8 and the R-15 in the sense that is one way to get affordable housing because the house size can be smaller than the R-4, 1400 square foot minimum. This is an affordable housing project in Boise, the homes would be very much the same as what would be in the Bedelco project but there is something I feel is negative in this and that is there are no sidewalks. In the Bedelco project the street would be 50 feet standard with a 5 foot sidewalk and it would look just like a regular subdivision in Meridian. The setbacks would be the same, but the housing is the only difference in the house size in an R-4 subdivision. This is anofiher look at manufactured housing. One way to solve some of the problems when you have lots that are a little narrower sometimes people want to use their sideyard to store a boat or a camper, we have taken that concept and put in enough room for 120 space storage area. So every lot in there, every homeowner would be entitled to a space to store a vehicle and make sure this doesn't happen. This is in Boise not Meridian, standard subdivision and there is a nice old green car there but that is something that would not be happening in the Bedelco project through covenants, conditions and restrictions and also saying that you provided storage you have to put it there instead of in the sideyard. This is conceivably what the storage area could look like landscaped and fenced with the RV's behind it. We have also included a neighborhood park, again we Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 6 L went to the comprehensive Plan, you have a planning standard of 5 acres per population. We did some calculations and it just turns out that applying that standard of 2.5 acres would be appropriate. There is 5 Mile Creek right there it is next to the rail road tracks, 1 think a good location for a neighborhood park, it wouldn't be donated to the City, that would be a private park owned and operated by the homeowners association. But that is something that is a positive here. Here is the layout again, we think we have covered all the bases we have the large business lot on the east side of Locust Grove Road which just sold, Bedelco just sold that. We have small business lots on the west side of Locust Grove Road extended. Bedelco already has 2 small businesses that are waiting for this plat so they can buy, there is interest in it. We have looked at the affordable housing issue, we have tried to blend the buffers, the screening the set backs, the lot widths all of that into consideration and just one other thing for point of information I know that affordable housing is kind of a tough thing in some communities. In the last 4 years, the City of Meridian has nearly doubled in population, in that same time period about 1 1/2% of all of the units approved by the City have been defined as affordable by the federal government taking 80% of the median household income and factoring it into the HUD regulations. In some communities and I am not saying this is in all situations 1 don't think you can make a blanket statement but under 5°/a when your affordable housing threshold falls below 5% it is a trigger that tells you there might be some policies there might be something the community needs to do to stimulate affordable housing. And I think we can show that it is 1 1 /2% and all I am asking is that we think about that. Think about is there enough affordabte housing in the community, think about small business and the need for housing for their employees. As well as the small business lots that are along Locust Grove Road. Also, at the Planning and zoning commission meeting I think we had 6 people testify, one in favor and 5 not necessarily opposed but with concerns. We are ready to address every one of them, I made notes. Mr. Mckague did not want people on the easement near his property, Melinda Harper wanted to make sure there was good lighting, street fighting in the project. Mrs. Farrington wanted trash to be addressed and trash receptacles. Builders Masonry Products submitted a letter against the project but I did speak to Mr. Joe Smith the owner of Builders Masonry today. And Mr. Smith is willing to reconsider comments if Bedelco will prepare in their covenants, conditions and restrictions language and this would have to be approved by the City Attorney and supported by the City Attorney and this may not be workable I do not know. But if the language is there that recognizes that Builders Masonry was there first and the people that live in Bedelco recognize that they were there first and that there is going to be noise and odor and fumes and dust and vibration etc. coming from Builders Masonry. He felt that if there could be language like that that is defendable by the City in the event of a complaint then he could withdraw his objection. He didn't say he would but at least we are talking and negotiating. I hope we could if you decide to approve this rezone require that Builders Masonry be satisfied as part of any rezone or any development agreement. Mrs. Sharp asked that we have more foresight in planning this project and perhaps we need more. We have done quite a bit • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 7 and if we have made some mistakes we will go back to the drawing board. And then also a Mr. Moore spoke in favor of manufactured housing in the area. I would be happy to answer any questions. Kingsford: Any questions of the Council for Mr. Forney? Cowie: Wayne you have done a lot of home work, I am trying to remember back in some of my planning and development classes at the university. They have all looked down the line in the past histories and they don't recommend industrial properties going into residential properties because of things that happen to them. Why do you think that this should be any different? Forney: Somewhere there has got to be a buffer, if I can maybe go to the screen here. We have significant residential development on the north side of Pine on the west side of Locust Grove and that is Maws Addition Subdivision. We have some very nice residential and some rural lifestyle development, some very nice homes, nice pastures (inaudible). This is zoned industrial, someone has got to make a buffer, it is very d~cult to just draw a line and say this is (inaudible) what you are doing is shifting the buffer to these people here and you are shifting the buffer up here (inaudible). Bedelco has to provide the buffer, you screen us. (Inaudible) the concept that Bedelco has is more of a business, it is not an industrial use of lots 1, 2, 3, 4 down to 13 along Locust Grove. So the buffer is self contained inside this project rather than forcing it on someone else. That is just a concept we chose to take based on meetings with citizens. Morrow: It brings up an observation here why not subdivide the whole thing into business lots and not do the manufactured housing? Forney: If you deny the rezone request and by that I guess you would be saying we don't want affordable housing or any housing in that area. If that is the action of the Council then Bedelco has 2 options, sit on it and wait for a big user, because there is about 35 acres zoned light industrial just wait for someone to come pick up the 35 acre chunk. It has already had its one time lot split. Or submit a plat, a preliminary plat and resubdivide the 35 acres there into small business lots. We hope that you will approve the rezone to let something like this happen that has several things happening on a piece of property that solves some problems. I respect that you can turn it down too, I respect that is your decision, I respect that. Kingsford: Any other questions of Council? Anyone else from the public? Mark Smith, 1110 Oneida, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 8 Smith: I would like to read a statement on behalf of Builders Masonry Products and I can give you copies for the record. Following the October 11th hearing when this same rezoning request was considered and following some discussions in recent weeks with various individuals interested in this issue, some apposed, some favorable. Builders Masonry Products has reconsidered the matter carefully and remains opposed to the rezoning. For the record Builders Masonry Products resubmits its October 11th statement which provides a summary of our specific concems regarding the negative impact the rezoning decision could have on our business operation. I would like to give you copies (inaudible). While we don't produce fumes and odors we produce a little bit of dust and quite a bit of noise at our facility. The October 11th statement basically points out our major areas of concern with regard to locating residential property near our property. And this was submitted in the last meeting and I don't think I need to read that again. One of the points though that is of particular concern is that residential developments are constructed in an area that was originally zoned for industrial use there (inaudible) on the business. As an illustration of this I will mention that I was travelling to Missouri this summer on vacation and made a point to stop and visit a block plant just to see how they operate. And learn some things from them, the other things I found was that they were located in an area much like where we are located now and there had been some rezoning and suddenly they were surrounded by residential properties. Now they are not allowed to operate after 6 p.m. in the evening so if they need to go to a double shift their hands are tied. And also in the morning very early they are not allowed to run their trucks because of the noise. All of this came about because after years of residential development the residents got tired of the noise and decided that they would use their influence and their votes to get laws changed which then nothing the business could do about it. That is one of our primary concerns and therefore we oppose the project. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Smith? Morrow: I don't have any questions for Mr. Smith I have a comment to make. I think that your operation and it doesn't have anything to do with what we are addressing here tonight, we have sited your operation as a class act as the type of thing that we would like to see in Meridian and even though by all definitions it is a major industrial operation it is very harmonious with our City and what we are after. So I guess on behalf of myself and maybe my fellow Councilmen and the Mayor say thanks for running a class act and thanks for being a good part of the City. We appreciate that. Smith: Thank you, can I make one more comment? I do know that there has been conversations with Wayne and my father Joe Smith. We had meetings following that conversation and our primary concern is you can put language in a contract whether it is covenants or some kind of contract language with the home buyers but whether or not something like that could be enforceable down the road is something that we just don't Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 9 have a lot of confidence in. That is why we decided to come down on the side of Apposing the rezoning. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Dale Newberry, 11908 Peconic Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Newberry: I too would like to express concern over residential moving into an industrial area My concern is more along the lines of children, there is no way to keep them out of areas that might be fenced off. We have a fenced off area that has chemicals and machinery in it. This is going to open us up to liability issues that 1 think are unwarranted. 1 would like you to consider the problems of having residential that close to industrial sites. I expressed by concern to the P & Z when Maws subdivision and I was #old then that well this was the dividing line and that would be all the residential up to that point. This is crossing that now and I think that we ought to be cognisance of some of the issues of children and vandalism might be a factor too. 1 am more concerned about them coming on the property being hurt. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, Mr. Forrey I wonder if I can get you to turn the fan off I am sure we are picking that up pretty loud on the speaker. Anyone else that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor is it your opinion that there are different findings? Crookston: There have been 2 different people testify but in the case of Mr. Smith, Stephanie Churchman testified at Planning and Zoning, I don't think their testimony is significantly different. Mr. Newberry did not testify at P & Z but his comments are in line with other comments that were received at Planning and Zoning. So 1 don't think there is a significant difference. Kingsford: is the Council comfortable with the findings prepared for P & Z? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, 1 move that we adopt the findings as prepared for P & Z. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning and Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Con-ie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 10 Kingsford: Your decision on the rezone. L Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we adopt the decision from the Planning and Zoning Commission which is they recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian the application for rezone from light industrial to R-15 residential should be denied. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision that was issued by P & Z to deny the rezone request from I-L to an R-15, all those in favor? Apposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: Ingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Gary Lee, 1750 Summertree, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: The application before you this evening is a request for annexation and an R-4 zoning with a preliminary plat known as Greenhaven Estates. This particular subdivision is located off of Meridian Road about a 1/4 mile south of Ustick just north of Lansbury Lane Subdivision that just recently went in last year. It is composed of 40 single family residential lots on about 14.88 acres resulting in a density of 2.7 lots per acre. The configuration of the parcel is such that the minimum building lot size is 80 feet by a depth of 164 or about 13,000 square feet. The request again for R-4 zoning, the structures to be built here will comply with the existing zoning ordinance. We do request that the minimum building size remain at 1400 square feet. There is a 20 foot wide common landscape lot adjacent to Meridian Road to act as a buffer. This lot will be held in common ownership and maintained by a homeowners association. Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the findings of fact there were suggestions about revising the plat to allow acx;ess to the neighbor on the west boundary. We have done that and I have brought some reduced copies of that plat for your (inaudible). It is shown on the revised plat, we did have a culdesac on the west end of what is shown as Delana Street. That has been eliminated, the road has been extended to the west boundary to allow extensions into the neighboring parcels. And that effect on the parcel is unchanged it is still 40 lots and it worked out fairly well. As can be seen on the preliminary plat we have access off of Meridian Road and also on NW 3rd Avenue to the south connecting into Lansbury Lane Subdivision. The road also extends td the north for future expansion to • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 11 parcels on the north side. All the streets of course are public right of way, ACRD standard. You will note that there is a stretch of that NW 3rd is 40 foot right of way that is done to accommodate a connection to an existing 40 foot right of way that is there now. But it does change to a 50 foot once it passes the intersection. The parcel is serviceable by Meridian facilities, sewer and water. There will be a pressurized irrigation system provided in the subdivision. And of oourse all utilities will be underground as required by ordinance. After reviewing the findings of fact as recommended by Planning and zoning commission in our revised preliminary plat we have not indicated any landscaped median strips along the east west street. We have discussed it wifh Ada County Highway District at their preliminary plat review and they suggested using the speed bumps in that area. We would like to maintain the 1400 square foot minimum building size to accommodate potential home buyers and leave the market a little wider range. We have addressed the comments from the City Engineers office and the City planning office and responded by letter. And I would be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Lee? Tolsma: I have one, on this last (inaudible) rather than the (inaudible) those little bulbs in the center. Did they prefer the speed bumps over the top of the little bulbs in the center? Lee: I don't think they had a preference either way. Tolsma: Well the problem with speed is that fire trucks and ambulances have a terrible time with those. The little bulbs in there would probably (inaudible) slow the traffic down a little (inaudible) I think Lansbury Lane has that (inaudible). Ingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Lee? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Joe Simunich, 955 W. Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simunich: I have been asked to come here by Mr. Sanford who adjoins this subdivision on the west. He is unable to attend this meeting. I am here in regards to his access road. I have a letter from him here addressed to you folks about some discussions that have been done for an access road and also there is a plat here that has a lot designated more or less for the access road approximately southwest of this existing culdesac on the previous plan. So I will give this letter and this copy to the Council here and you can take it from there. Thank you. Kingsford: Joe, have you seen this latest copy that he just submitted? • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 12 Simunich: No I haven't. • Kingsford: You might take that and give it to Mr. Sanford maybe if we could compare where you are saying that Mr. Sanford, you are talking about this is going to be an access, does his property go up as far north as this to grant him access or would you know? Simunich: (Inaudible) Kingsford: In discussions with Mr. Sanford he and I were concerned about that as well and I want to make sure this grants him access certainly. Simunich: (Inaudible) (End of Tape) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, is Mr. Sanford's property landlocked? Kingsford: That particular parcel is landlocked with regard to a public street. There is a private lane that is a deeded lane that he does not own that he has some concerns about having access to. Morrow: How large a parcel is his properly? (Inaudible) Kingsford: That is Venable Lane that he has to come in from Ustick on. Morrow: I understand that, the point is if that is a somewhat questionable access then and we have no other access to this property other than what this may provide? Kingsford: That is correct. Morrow: So that is a major issue. Kingsford: For him to consider development and to be able to develop on a private lane that is deeded to someone else he h as some real concerns. Anyone else from the public? Chris Williams, 4185 S. Linder Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: 1 am here representing the Lansbury Lane Homeowners Association. We have got 3 concerns I would like to address the Council with. One would be the entrance of • e Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 13 Greenhaven Estates. In Ldnsbury we have tried to establish a littlb bit nicer entrance. We have a piece of property in Lansbury Lane, if you look at the plat of Lansbury Lane and the plat of Greenhaven Estates they are almost identical with the exception of the additional depth of those lots, the additional 13 feet on those lots. The cost based upon Lansbury Lane of doing something in brick, we didn't necessarily want anything in brick but just something a little bit nicer than a cedar fence which would deteriorate, landscaping, stone just something. The cost that we spent in Lansbury Lane to make this investment which I think 50 years down the road will still be a pretty nice entrance, it is low maintenance, I think it will be pretty nice down the road. Landscaping would be nice down the road, something, a cedar fence in 10 years isn't going to look very good. !t is a maintenance issue also. We spent approximately $200 a lot to do the entrance that we did, which I didn't feel was a real major expense based upon the longevity of how long it is going to be there. Our second concern which was recommended by the Planning and Zoning to the Council is we requested a 1600 square foot minimum on the homes in Greenhaven Estates. The reason for this is because we are dealing with a 350 foot wide piece of property that is set between Lansbury Lane, Lansbury Lane with 19 homes in it out of 41 now designated we are averaging 1950 square feet on our homes. To the north on the other side 350 feet away from Lansbury is the Sweet's property they have 2650 home and a 2200 square foot home each on 2 acre lots. Dan Sweet has a plat which was designed on his and his fathers property 23 lots on 10 acres, 2.3 lots an acre. It kind of makes it so it goes from Lansbury 2.9 lots an acre to 2.7 to 2.3, I think it is a real good progression there in a short space. But, with the 2 houses he has on that property now and the square footage they have got they are so big that what he was looking at doing was something similar to what he already has there in home square footage. So if we go from 2000 average or 1950 average to 1400 square feet to 2200 or 2600 square feet in a 350 feet span it doesn't make a lot of sense. We respect the developers right to develop this property, we wanted to be reasonable that is why we came up with the 1600 square foot number it just gave us a little bit of a buffer to where there wasn't such a big span between the house sizes and the square footage. The minimum in Lansbury is 1700 by the covenants in a single story, 1800 on a 2 story. The third issue that I wanted to address was the speed bumps and the islands. Lansbury Lane if you look at the letter that was sent, that I had written and sent to you showed the requirement of the bulbs. I spent a lot of time out in Lansbury Lane, the effectiveness of the landscaped island to slow down traffic on a straight road, I found to be really effective. You will find that there are still high school kids that will speed through there but the high school kids will jump speed bumps too. My concern about the speed bumps is if you have 3 speed bumps between this intersection that is backing the subdivision in Meridian the people now that it is stubbed out to the west it makes logical sense that in order to avoid the speed bumps people are going to come from the future developments over here and including the west end of Greenhaven and go through, cut down through Lansbury to avoid the speed bumps. It is common sense, that is what I would do. This is a 28 foot back to back right of way it is a • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 14 • restricted right of way, the stub street going into Greenhaven. So you are dealing with a restricted right of way plus we are getting traffic from Greenhaven going through our neighborhood. The landscaped islands we feel have been pretty effective as far as aesthetics I think they are realty nice. As far as controlling the speed of the traffic I think as far as I can tell so far they have been really effective. But as far as where we stand if there is not going to be islands we would actually prefer no speed bumps because that will keep the traffic from diverting over into our neighborhood through the restricted right of way and that is our concerns. In the minutes, I have something else, in the minutes which were approved at the P & Z meeting Gary Lee said that islands are a possible solution to help control the traffic. Kingsford: A comment Mr. ~Iliams, it wouldn't just be high school kids that would speed their mothers and fathers do and it sounds like a developer that just spoke might to since he is going to cut through there. Williams: I found it really has slowed people down the islands. The cost of the islands and I went back and pulled the numbers was $100 a lot which I didn't think was a very big expense. A $100 on a $30,000 lot, $100 a lot that is minuscule. I'Gngsford: Just an observation, any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor? Crookston: The testimony is basically the same. Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to adopt the findings prepared for P 8~ Z. Morrovw. I have a technical question and I am drawing a blank. Do these findings ask for the bulbs within the streets as opposed to speed bumps? Kingsford: They did not. Crookston: These findings don't pertain to the plat. Kingsford: They are with regard to the annexation. Crookston: There are comments in them that pertain to some things on the plat because that is what was testified to. Ingsford: The Council will notice that the next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat request. Which there is also a public hearing on the plat, I assume the testimony might Meridian Clty COUncll December 15, 1994 Page 15 be similar. • Morrow: Having resolved that then I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the P & Z Commission. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared and submitted by P & Z, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: I believe our decision would be that the property be annexed and zoned R-4 residential with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law including that the minimum size houses to be built in the subdivision be 1600 square f®et and that the applicant and owners be specifically required to tits all ditches, canals, watennrays and install a pressurized imgation system as conditions of annexation and that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian to and including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement. And if the conditions are not met that the property be deannexed. Kingsford: Entertain a motion then to have the Attorney prepare an ordinance. Cowie: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to have the City Attorney prepare an annexation and zoning ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: The direction was to pass the ordinance but did you approve of the annexation and zoning? Ingsford: We approved the findings of fact, we can't approve the annexation and zoning until there is an ordinance prepared can we, isn't that the process? • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 16 Crookston: That is true, no question here. ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: Kings#ord: I think some of the people spoke to that, if they have different testimony I would invite them to address that. Mr. Lee did you want to say anything different with regard to the plat? Asa matter of policy we have listed those separately because from time to tim we have inadvertently omitted doing the plat so we have lifted those. At this time I will open the public hearing and invite anyone that would like to comment further on the plat for Greenhaven Estates. Joe Simunich, 955 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simunich: The Mayor gave me a plat here for this road extension to the Sanford property. I would just like to ask, I think it is Mr. Lee possibly to give Mr. Sanford and see if this will work for everybody. Possibly some changes may be in order. Thank ybu. Kingsford: Certainly I would echo that I want to make sure that does not get landlocked back there. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony. Mr. Williams it would be dully noted your interest in the plat. Is that all right Counselor? Crookston: You can adopt his statements into this record. Kingsford: Direct the City Clerk to adopt those comments into this record. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council Morrow: Questions of Gary and Shari, your comments, Mr. Lee indicated in his prior testimony that they had addressed those comments by way of letter to you, was the resolution of 18 items that you had sited Gary satisfactory? Smith: Yes they were Councilman Morrow. Morrow: And Shari you had 11 items that you were concerned with was that resolution satisfactory? Stiles: With the exception of I still would like to see the landscaped islands in there in lieu of the speed bumps. Ingsford: Any other questions of the Council or comments? Is it the Council's desire to • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 17 adopt the preliminary plat, I would ask them to include a condition that it accesses Mr. Sanfords property to the salification of (inaudible). Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the preliminary plat of Greenhaven Estates subject to staff conditions with the added 2 conditions that the landscaped bulbs be included within the roadway and that access be guaranteed to Mr. Sanford's property so that it does not become landlocked. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Greenhaven Estates conditioned upon staff comments being met that the landscaped lots be included in stead of speed bumps and that access be assured to Mr. Sanford's property to the West, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY DIANE AND ROBERT LANG: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite their owner or designee to speak first. Roen Wilson, 1567 Leslie Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. ~Ison: I don't know just what I am supposed to say or what I am supposed to do here. This building will be used as antique and collectible shop. I think that we have done everything that we are supposed to do in the meantime. We have gotten the site plan from the engineer and they called today and said that the Ada County Mighway Department had approved it. So if you have any questions? Kingsford: Any questions of the Council? Wilson: This is easy. Kingsford: So far, thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. It is getting easier all the time. Counselor? Crookston: It is just fine. ~ ~ Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 18 Kingsford: Is there a motion on the findings? Tolsma: Mayor I move (inaudible) Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by P & Z, discussion Mr. Morrow? Morrow: I had a comment with respect to Shari's comment in her October 7th letter that the applicant needs to submit a site plan showing landscaping, parking, drainage calculations and all of that, has that been done Shari or is that process on going? Stiles: I do have a site plan that shows some parking that I would like to go over with the City Engineer to make sure that is going suffice and also the fire department. There is not landscaping shown but there is existing landscaping there that may be adequate. I just haven't had a chance to completely go over this site plan for the parking. Kingsford: It is moved and seconded, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mon-ow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the opinion? (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: Is there a motion on the rezone? Cowie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have the attorney draw up the rezone ordinance. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: It is moved and seconded, is the Council comfortable with that or do you want to include conditioned upon Shari's review of the parking spaces? Morrow: Mr. Mayor that would be my preference. Kingsford: Could I have a withdrawal of the motion and the second? C Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Pege 19 Cowie: I withdraw the motion. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Is there a new motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare the ordinance for the rezone from R-15 to Commercial subject to staff recommendations and conditions. Cowie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attomey draw up the rezoning ordinance subject to stafFs approval of the parking, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Wilson: Do we have any idea about timing on this? ICngsFord: Well, typically what we would have is an ordinance at the next meeting which would not be I suppose next Tuesday, so that would be the first meeting in January which is not on that calendar it must be the 3rd of January. At that time we adopt that ordinance which in all likelihood we would it would have to be published and as soon as it has been published it would be in effect. Wilson: Do you have any idea how long that takes, we need to get going because we are spending so much money we need to get some coming in. Ingsford: I would anticipate that if Mr. Berg would get with the program he could probably get space reserved and have that in that paper of that week. Crookston: It is a possibility. Kingsford: It is a possibility but I can't guarantee it, their publication day is Monday sometimes they will keep space open for us. If they do that then it would be approved at that publication which would be Friday of that week, if not it would be the following Friday. Wilson: And once it is approved we can go ahead and operate or do we have to come back here again or what? Kingsford: No you would not have to come back again. C Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 20 Wilson: Thank you Kingsford: Am I correct Counselor? Crookston: Well, I don't know exactly what they are doing, but if they are building or changing things they will need a building permit, occupancy permit. Stiles: Does Council have a problem with them operating prior to the ordinance being passed is that what you are saying? Ingsford: No, to make sure that they won't need a building permit all those things fit with the business that they are going td do. (Inaudible) Kingsford: But the question is has the building department reviewed and does it meet a commercial code I guess. Crookston: They have to meet the current codes. Stiles: Does the ordinance have to be published? Kingsford: Yes Stiles: That is what you are saying it has to be published. Kingsford: Right, the zoning doesn't change until it has been published. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I guess I would instruct you to maybe be sure for your information that you check with the building department and make sure you are clean in terms or building codes, because we don't know about those. You can contact them usually in the morning before they go out to do inspections. Morrow: I think the other thing to help her out here we have a check off list that we are currently using that would check off for the P 8~ Z in terms of parking spaces and those kinds of things that need to be done before she receives her occupancy certificate which would come through the building department. Kingsford: So maybe if you would come in and get with Ms. Stiles and Shari will kind of • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 21 • hold your hand and take you through the process and say Ho, Ho, Ho while you are doing it. ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JONATHAN GIBB: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Ron Thurber, 111 South 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Thurber: Gentlemen, you have before you the packet on Taco Bell, this is the second public hearing. The first one for the Conditional Use Permit we have gone through our zoning is in order. The reason for the Conditional Use Permit is because of the drive in window. We have worked closely with Shari Stiles, we have reviewed the staff recommendations and the owner is willing to abide by the recommendations of the staff. !f you have any questions you would like to ask? Fngsford: Any questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. (Inaudible) Cowie: Mr. Mayor I had one question, City Engineer didn't have any comments on this so there is no problem with you then? Smith: No Councilman Corrie, the only thing that needs to be finally resolved with their building permit would be the connection to sanitary sewer. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 22 • Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the decision and recommendation which is the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian 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. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision of P & Z, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Atl Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve of the conditional use permit. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of the conditional use permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yep ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION 5,6 AND 7 BY B.W. INC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Dan Tortin, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tofiin: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council the applications before you tonight pertain a request for annexation and zoning of 2 parcels of land. The 2 lowers pieces that are colored in yellow end approval of a preliminary plat for 118 single family units. Phase 5 which is in the lower left hand corner contains 33 lots, we are proposing a little pocket park that would be developed with playground equipment in that area. We are also proposing a green belt along the Five Mile Creek which would be on the westerly side of the project. We are planning sewer and water for all of these phases. Phase 6 which is the middle piece contains 73 lots on 18.93 acres, those 2 parcels are the annexation parcels. This phase 6 the Ada County Highway District has approved the plat for all of this and this • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 23 phase 6 they did require 2 stub streets, one to the north which is located at the north easterly quarter and then another stub street to Atkins Road. With the additional access out onto Locust Grove and Fairview and Pine Street, 2 access points on fine Street, this subdivisions is provided with 4 access points. The northerly portion contains 12 lots on 3.07 acres and it was previously approved and annexed and we are just modifying it based on some rezoning that we did with that commercial out on Fairview. We are proposing similar to the existing Danbury Fair Subdivision to develop this project with 1100, 1200 and 1300 square foot structures, 25% 1100, 25% 1200, and then 50% would be 1300 or larger. In the findings, the approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that for the 2 parcels that were a minimum 1300 square feet. We take exception to that because of the location of this project, it is adjacent to Locust Grove which is going to becpme a four or five lane road in the future. We are located adjacent to heavy commercial uses. Our neighbors are industrial uses, commercial uses and then we are also located to existing Danbury which is similar to what we are proposing. In the comments frpm the City Engineer, we have no problems with the comments other than he did request that we provide a traffic impact analysis. We have been approved by ACRD and we fieel like we have adequate access. We don't need to provide further analysis for that. Like I said we are providing a bike path along the Five Mile Creek and would plan on fuming that over to the City of Meridian and we would develop it and tum it over to the City of Meridian with the cooperation of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are planning pressurized irrigation, we have designed we are retro fitting the existing Danbury Fair Subdivision and we have planned our source facility that will serve these new phases that are shown in yellow. I guess just to summarize it we feel very strongly about getting the 1100, 1200 and 1300 square foot mix that we propose. We are not proposing anything below 1100 which is allowed by the ordinance. A couple of problems that we have with that is tha# we would be buffering, if we went to the 1300 we would be buffering the smaller homes from industrial uses which is kind of a backwards scenario. We would have a tough time for our builders and a tough time fior our builders to compete and getting appraisals that would work for them. So, I guess we would like the Council to reconsider the findings that the planning and zoning commission came up with and grant us approval to go with the 1104 and the 1200 and 1300 mix I would be glad to answer any questions. Morrow. You have the necessary covenants and restrictions for these phases that have a homeowners association with dues levying capacity capabilities same as in the prior phases? Torfin: Yes, the master declaration for Danbury Fair has been approved and we have annexed the phases as we have developed them and these phases would be pulled into these covenants. I would just like to point out that we have maintained a strong architectural control in the subdivision and continue to do so and plan to in the future phases. • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 24 Cowie: Mr. Mayor the 50 foot on the greenbelt (inaudible) that is 50 foot center towards your property? Torfin: The centerline, actually the way that the easement had read according to our surveyors i# is 45 feet from the centerline over. And f think we have room to provide a pathway along that and still provide the depth in the lots that meet the square footage. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Ruth Crow, 8921 Sunflower Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Crow: I was not aware of this, my question to them is where is this greenbelt going? Kingsford: Where does it go from there Mr. Torf n. Torfin: Our property ends right here so we are proposing on getting it started which would come along here. The area in here is outside of our property, there is actually a 40 foot strip before we get into that right of way. We are talking about it stopping right here. But it could continue on and I believe that is property (inaudible). Crow: Does he mean that the irrigation district which they own on both sides of that? Kingsford: I think Ruth it is an easement, we have tried to encourage developers to use where we can those drains to be green belts s,o that, and I guess that is your property to the north. If you were to develop that we would probably ask that maybe that be continued so that people could jog, ride bikes whatever and be able to say hit Fairview and walk possibly to Cherry Plaza or whatever. Crow: 1 guess my question is what is going to stop them from doing that now? Kingsford: Of course they don't want to do it on property they don't own or control. What we, we haven't done all that much but we have, we are doing it on a piece of our property, we have a park, there is an example of it over in Fothergill Subdivision, Mr, Ewing has developed. What our hope is that developers as they develop will pick that up and extend it. Crow: Thank you Ingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. The issue then first is item 6 the annexation and zoning which would be parts 5 and 6. I r~ U Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 25 u Morrow: Mr. Mayor, from my perspective I am sensitive to the line of reasoning between our allowing the 25% at 1100, 25% at 1200 and 50% at 1300 square feet. I believe the findings of fact and conclusions represent that is only agreeable in the portion that was previously annexed. From my perspective I am going to part from the findings of fact and conclusions here in that I believe given the landlocked nature of this particular property and being sensitive to Mr. Forrey's earlier comments with respect to affordable housing that this type of project makes sense given its locatipn, its immediate surroundings both natural and man made barriers that it ought to continue as it was originally planned. So I would like to here what my fellow Councilmen think but I am not prepared to adopt these findings of fact and conclusions as they are written with under item 14 on page 13 and 14. Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? Cowie: Mr. Mayor I will address that, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. One is to Gary, and he is gone. Kingsford: How about the second question. Cowie: Okay, the second, actually it is not a question, I agree, do you know who has the north part of 6? Do you know who owns that piece of property right there? TorFin: No we don't we are providing a stub (inaudible). Cowie: I will, Walt asked for a comment and I agree with Walt on this one. The project was started and I think that in conjunction with Wayne Forrey's comments that this would probably be a good continuance. I have hesitancy as many know, R-8's (inaudible) in the City I think we are probably going to have enough of those very soon and I think this being a continuation I would go along with Walt and want to change the findings. Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? (Inaudible) Cowie: I think the line of demarcation will come at Locust Grove, anything east of that would not be R-8's. Kingsford: I would entertain as a motion to amend and approve of amended findings. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law to reflect or to delete the portion that, the phrase that the portion that is requested to annexed and zoned which abuts Locust Grove Road and Pine Street and was not a part - • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 27 Stiles: No, it would be the northern section there, but he had provided a stub street there which I think meets the intent of the ordinance. Kingsford: Counselor, if I may, typically we don't approve the plat until the annexation is done is that applicable here or would it be acceptable of the Council to approve of the plat? Crookston: You can approve the preliminary plat. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Is there a motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the preliminary plat of Danbury Fair Subdivision No. 5, 6 and 7 subject to staff conditions. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the preliminary plat for Danbury Fair Subdivision No. 5, 6 and 7 conditioned upon staff conditions being met, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION B JLG BUILDERS: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Morrow. Excuse me Mr. Mayor I do have a conflict of interest with respect to this proposal. I did stand down at the last presentation and I would ask that I be allowed to stand down for this presentation. Ingsford: Mr. Morrow has indicated a conflict, having due noticed it is up to the Council whether or not they want him to stand down. (Inaudible) Kingsford: t have no on one, you guys want to make him stand down or do you want him to sit here. (Inaudible) Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 28 Kingsford: Okay, stand down Mr. Morrow. • Steve Jensen, 2155 E. Gossamer, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jensen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council Grove Run Subdivision you might be familiar with it is a 36 unit town house development located on Locust Grove Road approximately 1/4 mile north of Fairview Avenue on the west side of Locust Grove Road. It is targeted as a owner occupied senior citizen development although not exclusive to senior citizens but that is what we feel like our market area is going to be. (End of Tape) The proposed subdivision is an in fill development on approximately a 5 acre parcel that is coming out at approximately 7 lots per acre. It is bordered on the south by Carol Subdivision, on the West by Meridian Place Subdivision and the North by Gem Park Subdivision with its only frontage being on Locust Grove Road. Meridian Planning and Zoning has recommended annexation and the R-8 zoning provided the applicant meet the conditions stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We are prepared to meet those findings and conclusions of law and complete the recommended development agreement with the City of Meridian as stipulated by Meridian Planning and Zoning and staff. We wrill submit a plan detailing the privacy fencing to buffer the adjacent properties from the development. I only had one question what was a comment from staff requesting additional buffering as to what they are referring to we do intend to landscape, but that landscaping it going to take some time to mature, so I did have a question there. They have also recommended that irrigation be pressurized irrigation or the possibility of incorporating in an existing well on the site that is there now. The developer is prepared to install all the perimeter fencing and make street improvements on Locust Grove Road which would include the widening of Locust Grove and installing sidewalks on Locust Grove according to ACRD standards and throughout the subdivision. That is basically what the project is and if there are additional questions I would be happy to try to answer them. Kingsford: Any questions? Yerrington: Yes, I was just looking on this map, you have a bulb at the end of your subdivision, looking at the map on the other side, would it be possible to connect this to the subdivision to the west which can run into Jericho. Jensen: The property owners on those 2 lots there on that bulb on the subdivision to the west there the properties come together there and so there is no right of way going through there now. I guess I wouldn't say that it is impossible however if we were to approach those property owners 1 feel as though they would probably prefer that we didn't continue that street through the subdivision and it would require acquiring property from those 2 property owners on the end of that culdesac on Jericho. Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 29 • Tolsma: (Inaudible) would you be willing to put the bulbs (inaudible) Jensen: ACHD has already stipulated that they want speed bumps at approximately Lot 8 and 9 on the street to slow traffic down. Because of the long narrow type pf site that is there we can't handle any more width on the street or any islands in that street and still get the development in there. But ACRD has stipulated that they want a speed bump at approximately Lot 8 in the development which the developer has agreed to do. It is kind of a difFcult parcel and it has been subdivided all the way around it and that is what has basically left it with this configuration. ACRD has approved the street going in and Meridian P & Z has approved the annexation and the plat as well. Kingsford: Any other questions? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, did I hear you say you were not wanting to put in a pressurized irrigation system? Jensen: No, not specifically. There is an existing~well on the site there now. The property has one residence on the property now and we have been led to believe that we might incorporate that well into an irrigation system that would possibly relieve the need for the pressurized system. This particular development there is a significant amount of hard cover on the site and the existing well would probably service the site a lot better than a pressurized irrigation system would. Kingsford: I think that well would be a pressurized irrigation. Jensen: Yes, it would be a pressurized system, just the source would be different. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jones: Mr. Mayor members of the Council we've discussed this several times. I live directly south of the project, my back footage is about 170 feet wide. If I remember correctly within that space the proposed development, without looking at the latest plat I am presuming there would be 4 units that abut my property. My back yard is about 60 feet from the back door to the back fence. 1Nith this project going in that means my neighbor is going to be 20 feet from that fence. I really feel that the choice of development in this area has been one of a financial decision father than what is best for either Gem Park or Carol Subdivision. Within Carol Subdivision we have .5 to .75 per acre units. Avery rural type of situation and Gem park we have basically 3.5 per acre, they are proposing 7.2 I think we are going to quite en extreme difference in density there. And taking away from • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 30 Carol Subdivision not only the view and the open space that I have as well as my neighbors but also the monetary loss in the property appraisal values in mostly my property and maybE3 the Gem Park properties on the other side. I recently built that home about a year ago and it is upper end of Carol Subdivision and with these duplexes going in and the conditions that they have talked I am afraid that it would hamper by values even greater. Preliminarily the planning and zoning has recommended that this go ahead and be passed. Concerns I have, if it were passed, they talked about a senior center or targeted toward seniors, there are no provisions or covenants stating such. They have indicated several different size of duplexes which are some around 1100 t believe that seems rather small. Again for the size of the homes over in Gem Park and the size of homes in Carol Subdivision I think the difference in the density and the property values are greatly diverse in this area. I too have the question, recommendation by staff that there be a better buffer than a 6 foot fence, what are we talking about here, are we talking about more distance between the home and the back fence? I think that would be more acceptable to maintain the like distances that we have in Carol Subdivision as well as Gem Park they have more than the minimum on their back fence lines. I don't see how right off a proposal it would help me out in this situation, but maybe there is one there. I am willing to listen and work with them. It seems like it is quite a blow to my properly. Thank you. Kingsford: If I might, you stated some square footage and I might have just missed it. What did you say they were in Gem Park? Jones: Gem Park I don't know, t know the property values are around $130,000, there are probably some other people that can bear testimony to that. The property values in my subdivision are from $130,000 to $200,000. Ingsford: I just wanted to clear that for the record I thought you had said that there would be less density in this that there was in Gem Park. Jones: No it is more density in this proposed area and smaller square footage per unit in this development. Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Fanita Stewart, 1194 East Willowbrook, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stewart: I just wanted to be sure that they weren't interested in putting that through our culdesac on Willowbrook there. Kingsford: So you would opposed that? Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 31 Stewart: Yes, I think all the neighbors would too? That is what they said they wouldn't do wasn't it? Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Liz Gwin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gwin: I have a real problem with the density issue there. I don't understand what your motivation would be if this was put through to go from our subdivision to this which is 7 to 8 units per acre over to Gem Park which I am not sure what they are I think it is 4 to 6 and ours we have barely 1 per half acre so I am wondering. I don't see this as a proper transitions between our neighborhoods. I know that our subdivision is sort of becoming like a duck out of water because we are the country subdivision being surrounded by town. But still we are there, also, I wasn't sure that if in the findings of fact and other things that the issue of stock being kept in our subdivision was going to addressed to whatever is going to be developed oust there because of what I understand people move out and you have a mule or a horse or whatever makes noise and a little bit of smell and people complain. Well, there is not a lot that we can do if we already have our animals there so we would kind of like to see a written provision that whoever buys in there understands that their stock can be kept in our subdivision. Another problem that I wasn't aware of that could be a problem is if they use the well on the property there for irrigation it could affect some of the surrounding residential wells that are in use there so 1 have a real question about that. I am not sure we have always had plenty of water there but if they do something, use that well (inaudible) how much it is used. I don't think that the people that lived there before used the well for irrigation. They have always used the irrigation from the ditch. So that could be a real problem. Kngsford: Elizabeth do you happen to know what the depth of the wells mostly of Carol, 150. (Inaudible) Gwin: Some are 60 I think too, I think there are a few that are 60 feet. That could become a problem for us. I don't know if there would be any provision if they do that if they would be willing to drill new wells for those people whose wells might not be usable to them anymore. If they go ahead and develop that I would rather seem them use the irrigation water because that is going to keep the ground water level up in the area. The irrigation does come in there full force. I think they run like 37 inches in tha# ditch 1 am not sure that is what they used to do, maybe with the subdivisions that are there now they don't. Kingsford: The Water Commissioner is going to speak I am sure he will tell us how much Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 32 it is. Gwin: Anyway those are the questions I have and I really feel opposed to this because I don't think it fits in our area. No matter what else is going to go in around us we are still going to be there and I don't think that even if we are annexed to the City I doubt if anybody is going to start building 5 or 6 houses to an acre or 8 houses to an acre in our subdivision. So, that is my comments. Kingsford: Anyone else? Don Bryan, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bryan: I had so many things that I wanted to talk about tonight 1 had to number them. I wanted to make sure I am clear on what is going on. It is proposed 36 tots with 18 units. Does that mean the structur® is going to be dissected down the middle on the lot line? Kingsford: That is correct, in essence what we would refer to as a duplex but they are going to be town house zero lot line separate owners. So what you would see there is really dwelling units, you would see 36. Bryan: And 18 structures only? Kingsford: Right, at least that is my concept, if I am wrong. Bryan: Well I have a problem with the density too, it does, we have been talking, you folks have been talking about getting away from R-8 for some time now and getting a little bit higher quality and developments of R-4's. This is in my mind worse than R-8 it is congested in there as many traffic problems we have out there. I am real concerned about the entry in and out of that subdivision as it enters across where my driveway is directly across the street. You have 36 units and 10 trips per unit Ada County Highway District figures per unit that is 360 trips out of that driveway a day, additional to what we have going on now anyway with the mess that we have out there. That is a real concern. The first Planning and Zoning meeting for the 40 units which was tabled and then it came out with the 36 units, we actually had 2 hearings at Planning and Zoning on this parcel. A lot of people gave their testimonies at the first meeting and there was a lot mentioned to the fact that there is a water pressure shortage in that area. A lot of people in Gem Park stated that they don'# have the water pressure that they need on the City water, I wonder if that has been addressed. I think that is why you don't see a lot of the people here that were at the first meeting here tonight because they have all expanded their frustration and they are done. My next item is the entry landscaping at Locust Grove, the entry to the subdivision, what type of an entry are they going to have. They are talking about a cedar • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 33 fence, well I would like to know who, the homeowners association is going to take care of that and the harmed area. We have a lot of new harmed area up there on Locust Grove and a lot of fences and I wonder, judging by the way all that harmed area looked this summer what that is going to look like in 5 or 10 years down the road. It is already deteriorating real bad and not kept up and there are some of them that are and nice looking but others are just going right down the tube. I wonder if there is any type of control of the homeowners association has to enforce that to keep it up. Without somebody like me that is directly across the street from them calling down here and bitching that they got an ugly eye sore. So 1 want that addressed. And animals is a problem such as Liz was talking about, I have animals across the street, horses. I have already talked to Ada County Highway, when they start developing that road and widening that road I am going to have to get a 6 foot chain link fence to keep people out of the horses mouth 1 guess. It has already become a petting zoo with people walking up and down the street they all have to stop and pet the horses. It is increasing my liability if one of those horses bit one of the kids they will come running to me and say we are going to sue you for taking my kids finger off. I don'# blame them but it is affecting my quality of life out there as we develop around it. Well, I guess that is going to be my problem down the road. Number 7 is my biggest concern and that is the water, Mr. Jensen stated this is a difficult parcel to develop. I think the reason why is he is trying to get so much on such a small piece of property. If they use the irrigation well, I think the reason that they are thinking about using the irrigation well, this is just conjecture on my part, that they don't have any water going to that property unless they take it of the drain on the north side. That ditch was eliminated to feed that parcel when they screwed up the water situation behind me that we have been trying to resolve for the last year or longer. When they put in Dove Meadows back by the church they eliminated the ditch dissecting that parcel where Avast is developing and that is the ditch that used to feed that property it came in at the, it would be the southeast carver and came across that down. I am not familiar with that end, I don't get real familiar with my down stream neighbors but that is where Terry used to get all his water when he was irrigating. I don't really like the idea of them using the well that is on the properly for pressurized irrigation, number 1 I don't think it is going to last that long and number 2 it is going to affect my well and my well is 60 feet deep. ICngsford: Don, do you know where that ditch went when it went off this property before? Did it not serve anyone else downstream from there? Bryan: No, it served the east side of this property and then it dumped into the drain. He took it down along his north boundary and used it off of there, but it dumped into the main drain going out. As far as I am aware of. Now when he irrigated it came across it may have gone down somewhere that I am not aware of. There is no water being (inaudible) that I am aware of. • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 34 (Inaudible) Bryan: Drain water no live water. That is the problem that I am working on trying to get my problems resolved. They haven't done anything yet with that and I don't know what they are going to do but that they are aware of that. They are aware that they cut off the water to that parcel and when you take care of my problem you had better look into this one and check with the people that are developing this land here in case they want to use pressurized irrigation which they are going to have to because of the ordinance. So, I don't know we may have to talk to Avest and see what they are doing with the problem. I would sure like to see them use Nampa Meridian water instead of that well. I think that is all I had, any questions? Yerrington: Don, do you know the depth of their well on that property or not? Bryan: No I do not. I just know that there is a high water table over there and they had problems with their septic system. They had to put in a new system to sell the place when they sold it. Because they always had trouble with the water table which is obvious because of the problems I had. It is lower than me, it is all going that way. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Ingsford: I think that the developer can probably speak to that. Thank you Don, anyone else from the public first. Would you answer those questions for the Council? Jensen: Just a couple of points of clarification, one with regard to the projected unit sizes. The floor plans that are now available, there is a 2 bedroom, 2 bath unit single level with a 22 foot by 22 foot garage it is 1230 square feet. There is a 3 bedroom, 2 bath with a 22 by 22 garage that is 1406 square feet. Kingsford: And those square footage are not including the garage? Jensen: Exclusive of the garage so they are a little bit bigger than what might be the opinion of others. A couple of other items with regard to Locust Grove and the traffic issue. ACRD has estimated 288 cars trips per day out of the development when it is done. We are responsible for improving the west side of Locust Grove Road. Right now if anybody has driven down there Locust Grove is until it gets to Gem Park as it goes in front of Doris Subdivision and also in front of this subdivision it is kind of a narrow lane with no street curb or gutter. We will be widening Locust Grove Road and putting in a 5 foot sidewalk on Locust Grove Road and then inside the sidewalk there is a 20 foot bermed area before you get to the first lot. That is how that will be addressed. As far as the fencing and the perimeter fencing I don't think it has been finally established what the Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 35 perimeter fencing would actually be on Locust Grove. The cedar fencing that you see up and down Locust Grove right now is admittedly not that attractive. I am not sure that is what they will be using here, it might be more of a landscaped buffer on Locust Grove as opposed to that fencing. There wrill be a 6 foot privacy fencing those around the south, the west and the north sides of the properly. But directly on Locust Grove I think we are kind of leaning more towards the landscaped look on Locust Grove there. With regard to the water issue, I wish I had some more specific information on the well, 1 don't. I do know as was previously stag that the water table out there is quite high, that well because of the hard cover on that property will not be irrigating that much ground and that well will only be operating only 5 months a year or 6 months anyway. And during the winter months that well won't be operating at all. So we hope that it is not going to significantly draw down the table out there. But certainly drawing down the water table has not been the problem there in the past which was earlier testified too because of the problems with the septic sewer systems there on this specific parcel. So, we would hope that we would be able to pressurize the system from that well, but if tha# is not possible then we would have to go the other direction to comply with the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. if there are any other questions? Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Jensen? Corrie: Do you know how much water is available coming through those ditches, it seems like we don't have any ideas? Jensen: No, I don't have that information. Apparently from what we are hearing here that they haven't irrigated that ground for some time and whether or not they are getting any delivery now at all is questionable. Cowie: That brings a concern about other peoples wells, (Inaudible) concerned about (inaudible). Jensen: I think that is a legitimate concern, we are looking at probably on this development about 70% of the development is going to be hard cover, it is going to be streets, sidewalks, driveways, houses, patios. If you take 70% of that ground out there of the 5 acres the remaining 30% is somewhere in the neighborhood of an acre and a half of ground is all that we would be watering. That ground would only be being watered 6 months a year which is probably not that much sign~Cantly more than what they are using the well for now 12 months a year as a sole source of water for the livestock that is currently there plus the domestic water use of the house, showers and whatever other water needs are there. Corie: Okay, another question, do I understand that (inaudible) 2 bedroom and 2 baths • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 36 and the 3 bedroom would be 1406 square feet. So in other words on your duplexes you will have a unit would be approximately 2450 square feet in that unit there and the next one could be as much 2800. So we are looking at 18 homes that will be larger but it doesn't get that sudden small look. Jensen: No, they won't appear small at all, I think the buildings (inaudible). They are single level units so we hope that the privacy fencing that we will be putting up will block the line of sight from certainly the first floor levels of the adjacent properties. Thet is certainly our intent we think it is best for this development, we also think it is best for the adjoining property owners to block that line of sight. Our findings have been that the demands are for the single level unit and that is why we don't want to put e 2 story unit on the site. Plus it will help the privacy of the adjoining property owners. Cowie: (Inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) so you will have a 2 car garage at one end of it and (inaudible). Jensen: They are on the ends. Tolsma: So each apartment you might say has a 2 car garage. Jensen: That is correct, each living unit has a 2 car garage. Tolsma: (Inaudible) off street parking Jensen: And part of the CC&R's of the subdivision on a project of this size and this kind of density we make it part of the CC&R's that they are required to garage their vehidles. We want the vehicles in the garages. It just makes a better looking subdivision and it promotes property values. Kingsford: Just a couple of comments, you are going to have mandatory home owners and be able to collect fees? Jensen: Yes, all the exterior maintenance of the buildings and the ground will be provided for by the homeowner association. So the exterior painting, roofs and landscaping maintenance and repairs will be taken care of by the homeowners association and we probably anticipate that at about $40 or $50 a month per living unit. Kingsford: The other thing is with regard to the well, I certainly agree with the people out there. You commented that there was a high water table and there are septic problems, it has been our experience particularly in that area that is more surtace water than it is • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 37 ground water, that the land just does not perk. I have some real concerns about pulling that (inaudible) water table down. I certainly, if the Council were inclined to approve it I would certainly prefer to see that be irrigation water. Jensen: If that is possible and we have the delivery there. Ingsford: It sounds like certainly now is the time to latch onto that as it is being disputed to your east. Jensen: As you know the only problem with irrigation water on residential watering is the availability of water in the ditch. (Inaudible) Jensen: Yes there is a water right for it but the availability of the wa#er in the ditches for landscaping is really of question. I don't think that ditch carries water all the time or that you can access ~' days a week like most people or every other day for landscape purposes. We are willing to work with whatever the recommendation of the Council and the City is. Kingsford: It has been my experience that Mr. Bryan has had more water than he wanted everyday of the week just across the street. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Jones you have a further comment? Jones: I apologize for not bringing this up earlier, one item we didn't address and hasn't been addressed in very much depth. Within the previous findings of fact I am not sure within these it may have addressed the need for recreation facilities or added space in this kind of a development. I have not seen anything in there for recreation and as he just discussed the landscaping would be a very minimal part of this development and there is no area for parks and recreation items in this. If this item does goes forward one of the things that I would request is maybe they could put in their covenants that it be owner occupied, that is one of the things that would definitely help in this particular project. I wouldn't mind seeing it go complete senior center where they would have to have a full recreational facility for the seniors similar to what they are going on Meridian Road, I can't remember the name of the project there. I think it would be more, a little better for the area. (Inaudible) Jensen: Quickly back to that irrigation issue if we could show through engineering calculations that the new use of the existing well is not exceeding with the current use of it would the Council consider authorising the continued use of that well if that could be • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 38 documented through engineering studies, that would really be our only comment there. Cowie: Would that be apropos Gary could you get (inaudible) Smith: I think we can determine what the irrigation might be on the property that might be developed, t have no idea what the use of the well has been at this point in a single family unit. Kingsford: I am not sure you can determine what a landscape, people like to have their grass float sometimes, I mean what you put down and what they actually put on there might be considerable different things too. Again, it would certainly be my preference that it be surface water but that is a Council question. Jensen: Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else ftom the public? Bryan: Maybe I didn't clarify this, we need to be real careful on this development and also Avast development. Avast, my last conversation wi#h Scott he was opposed to pressurized imgation and I don't know i# he is still pursuing that or not. If he applies for a variance to do that these people aren't going to have any water. And if they use that well and the wells start going dry around there, unless their adjudication goes back past 1932 they got to pull that well before mine because mine goes back to 1932. And if they put in this development there and everything is said and done and that well goes dry and they run our of water there is not access to any surface water. Kingsford: I think certainly that this developer has to make sure that water gets down to them. Bryan: We need to really be careful with Avast because he is already talking about burying the line to me and that is as far, it is just blowing by me and that is it. So we need to make sure that they supply him water for future (inaudible). Kingsford: You are saying Don they are going to put into your east property line and not take it any further? Bryan: No, they are going to, They are talking about burying my south side, my south line and where it comes down in my southwest comer is where it goes across the street to feed this parcel where it hasn't been going, it was terminated all last year they haven't been using any irrigation water there isn't any there. Unless they reroute the ditches or do something there on the Avast property they won't have any going down to them. So we Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 39 need to keep tabs of it. • Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor? Crookston: We have had changes in testimony, we have only had one person testify that has not testified at the Planning and Zoning meeting. But the testimony has varied I think it is up to the Council how they want to address it. Kingsford: Entertain a motion of the Council either to prepare new findings or adopt the old ones. Con'ie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we prepare new findings. Yerrington: Second Kngsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to have the City Attorney work with Council and prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Cowie: Mr. Mayor, I think Gary had a comment. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members 1 need to make a couple of statements on this subdivision. Number 1 Don Bryan is right, Avest is aware that they need to provide irrigation water to this parcel and at this point I have not seen any plans from them as to how they are going to proceed with development of their site and continuation of the irrigation of whether it is to Don Bryan's place of to this parcel of ground or anything else. So I don't know what they are proposing to do. There had been some loose verbal conversations with them. But Scott Weber is aware that this property is served from the ditch on Locust Grove to the south of Don Bryan's southwest comer and that water delivery needs to be maintained. Kingsford: They cannot legally separate the land from that water. Smith: That is correct. We will follow up and make sure that they do follow that. The second thing is that our water consulting engineer is in the process of studying the water pressure situation in this area and in the area to the east of this. It is my feeling that pressure zones will be created out there and will be in need of pressure boost stations in order to jump that pressure up. After initial testimony was made by the folks living in this area we set about putting pressure recording devices in the Gem Park Subdivision area U Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 40 and monitoring the pressure. We got some pressure readings end compiled all of those and sent those to our consulting engineer who is using that information to determine what we should do to rectify the situation and there are some low pressure areas out there. The other item is in my initial review of the annexation and zoning request I asked for information or I made a statement that it is a possibility to sewer Carol Subdivision someday in the future, it may be necessary to bring sewer in from Willowbrook through the subdivision, the culdesac at the end of Willowbrook. I am not sure what that culdesac is called whether it is Willowbrook Court or just an extension of Willowbrook. There is a sewer line that ends in that culdesac. That is a possible access point for sewer to the Carol Subdivision area if an when that subdivision ever needed sewer. Now I requested that be studied. And the last thing is that on my October 7th review on this request I asked for preliminary engineering plans and I have not seen nor heard from the developers engineer, I haven't seen any information. That information needs to be submitted, sewer, water, street lights, fire hydrants, etc. All of those items that are required by ordinance when a preliminary plat is submitted. That is all 1 have. Kingsford: Thank you Gary. With that in mind is it appropriate to table the, we still have to have the public hearing on the preliminary plat the way it is noticed? Crookston: We should have the public hearing. ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: Kingsford: Again that is as we have done in the past, is there any different testimony to the preliminary plat. I think most of the people addressed that same thing. Don Bryan, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bryan: l only had 2 things 1 wanted to make sure that got on record of being opposed to that street going through if indeed it would be feasible which I hope not, to Willowbrook. And also I have a question as to the length, do they have to apply for a variance with this plat for this street length the culdesac length? Along with the preliminary plat or is that later? Kngsford: Well, it would have to be with the plat, it is more than 1000 feet so it violates our block length ordinance. Bryan: That is all I had. (End of Tape) C Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 41 Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? David Bailey, 870 North Linder, Suite B, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bailey: I wanted to address the comments that the City Engineer made. When this was submitted as a preliminary plat I had submitted a preliminary engineering plan at the time to Shari Stiles. I have been trying to track that down since then and talked to Bruce Freckleton yesterday and I have the copies of it with me here tonight. I don't know what happened to those, why they didn't get distributed when they were submitted. They did not so I have extra copies I will submit to the City Engineer they are signed and dated the 16th of September of 1994. Kingsford: Would you give those to our acting City Clerk, that is where they should go not to Ms. Stiles or Gary. They are the people that distribute those, any communication that the City has to go to the City Clerk. Bailey: That is all I have, do you have any questions of me? Kingsford: Any questions of the engineer? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol, was swum by the City Attorney. Jones: As these proceedings end tonight you table the issue assumably and it comes up again will that be a public hearing as well or will that be, what is the process? Kingsford: It would got be. Jones: Let me just reiterate a couple of things. When they talked about the engineering of this subdivision I think it is critical that if the subdivision goes in that the neighbors are taken into strong consideration and the buffer cones, fencing, ligh#ing is very important and maybe some neighbor input wouldn't be a bad idea. Of bourse hopefully we don't get to that point, but and then the recreation issue as part of this platting. The reason it concerns me, I have several small children, I have a nice area for them to play, I don't want my backyard to be the neighborhood park. We have a vacant lot next door same thing, it doesn't need to be a neighborhood park. I think each neighborhood should provide their own park as in the master plan. Kingsford: Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion to table the preliminary plc#. Cowie: $o moved • • Meridian City Council a December 15, 1994 Page 42 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table the preliminary plat request for JLG Builders to the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Yerrington: Should it be the next meeting that is only a week away. Kngsford: Excuse me the first meeting in January, there wouldn't be findings for the next meeting on Tuesday. FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #10: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE TRANSFER BY PASTOR RAMIREZ: Kingsford: Come forward and state your request please. Ramirez: I am requesting a beer and wine transfer from Margurette's Hacienda to Corona Village located at 39 East Fairview here in Meridian. Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions? Chief you have reviewed the request? Gordon: Yes sir I have, I have no problems at all with the transfer taking place from Margurette's to Mr. Ramirez. Kingsford: Is there a motion of the Council? Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the transfer of the beer and wine license from Margurette's Hacienda to Pastor Ramirez, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 43 • Kingsford: Does Council have questions they would like to ask the developer's staff? Morrow: I believe Mr. Crookston has (inaudible). Crookston: Yes, mostly my fault but I thought that this was on the agenda for the 20th so I did not get things into the Council in time. What you do have, 1 have prepared basically I finished it at 7:00 tonight that is what I have given to you is a proposal. I think that you need to read it. It is not to be treated as a guideline, treat it as requirements, it is just what I thought was appropriate. I had taken what Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Wardle submitted to us the other day and added some things to it. I think you just need to address it consider it, make any changes that you want. I think that they would like action as soon as possible but it is totally up to you how you want to handle this. At the last meeting held off, I should say you held off on making a motion at my suggestion because I felt that there were too many items to have a motion made without giving some serious thought to it. You consented to that and I have to apologize that I did not get this to you in time for you to be able to deeply consider it. Kingsford: Counselor, I have just kind of read through it. Could you comment on the additions that you have made. I studied those fairly closely that Mr. Wardle presented us earlier in the week. Would you have specifics on what might be in addition to that? Crookston: In number 3 I put down that it would be not more than 65 lots in the single family areas, not more than 65 lots with 75 foot frontages and there shall not be 2 75 foot lots side by side. I have added some, they stated that the City would reserve the right to place appropriate conditions on the single family lots in areas in accordance with Ordinance requirements. They stated tha# some items in there like access, streets, roads and things of that nature, I added some things that are required by our ordinances just to bring them to ppint. Item 6, I stated that a new preliminary plat must be submitted for the single family portion of the development at the preliminary shall show a new layout of the single family lots to meet the above requirements which is really a reference to the 75 foot frontage lots. I state that the medium density parcels is approved conceptually. There is a question, I state that the maximum gross density of the medium density parcels shall not be 8 units per acre and shall not exceed blank units per acre. That is totally a Council decision, in a discussion that we had with Mr. Morrow there he indicated that he thought that the 8 units was too high. They need to submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on the medium density parcels. Kingsford: I might stop you there and ask Mr. Morrow, I don't recall that from you comments, is that your intent? • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 44 Morrow: I think my comments in the earlier meeting were that I had some reservations about density at that point in time. I don't know that I expressed a number or a concept of numbers. Crookston: You did not express a number you just indicated that you felt that the 8 units per acre was too high. Morrow: And I think I may have (inaudible) something that ought to be open amongst Council members or that would be my feeling, if it wasn't expressed that is what I wish to express. Crookston: That is why !just put a blank in there. Item 10 is reference to basically the same paragraph, number 10 is the same paragraph as number 5. Five pertains to the single family dwelling, 10 pertains to the medium density. Eleven is almost verbatim from what they proposed. I state that some of the requirements of the planned development that 607G 8 requires that there be design review. That is just an ordinance statement. I indicate that the ordinance requires them to submit a colored rendering of adequate scale to show the following that has not been done includes those 7 items stated there. 1 state that as a condition of this Concept approval this section shall be met by the applicant. 1 state that section 11 9-607 E mod cation of district regulations, I state a portion of that. And I state that the R-4 district is the district requirements that are supposed to be met. I state the the dens'rly of the entire prgject is within the 4 units per acre. Even though there is a medium density provision in the development, I state that the other requirements of the R-4 district may be varied to meet the objectives of this proposed planned development as long as they are desirable. A detailed development plan for the medium density and a new preliminary plat of single family layout is necessary so they can be reviewed to determine ff the exceptions to the R-4 requirements are desirable. I state that the new preliminary plat and detailed application and site plan for the medium density shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The last statement is that with this approval of the residential planned development concept it is appropriate for the City to complete the annexation of the 25 acres along the south side of the development and that prior to passage of the annexation ordinance the applicant deed the golf course property included as part of the residential planned development to the City. Kingsford: Thoughts of the Council? Cowie: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have this for I guess 1 week, the 20th is our next meeting, next Tuesday. There are a couple of things 1 would like to run by the Counselor, some ideas. So I would move that this be brought back up on the table on the 20th of December for recommendation of passage. Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 45 Tolsma: Second • Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table this to the December 20th meeting next Tuesday, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: No problem with giving them a copy of your proposal I would think? Crookston: Not at all. Kingsford: Do you have a spare one there? Crookston: I can give them mine because I have mine on computer. ITEM #12: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CANVEST (VAN AUKER): Kingsford: At this time I would entertain questions and comments from the Council. Morrow: I guess, what is the status of the development agreement, I have not seen any, there was not one in my packet, what are we doing with it? Stiles: Mayor and Council, Councilman Morrow, Wayne Crookston have you reviewed that, I am not sure where we are on that. Crookston: Yes, I reviewed the development agreement on December 1st of 1994 and returned my comments to Will. hle apparently then submitted them to Canvest. They have made some changes in the document. I don't feel that they have, let me rephrase that. They have very diligently and rightly so tried to address my comments. But I think that we are in a real difficult area, we are in an area we have not been in before and that is where these people were not applicant for annexation. We need to address that 4M Leasing agrees if they ought to be entering into a development agreement because their land is being annexed that there was not much of any representation by Mr. Van Auker as to what was going to be done with the property. We have statements in here that they are going to meet the representations. There are not many representations that have been made, we need to know in the agreement what they are going to construct. There was a clause in the first agreement that stated developer in accordance with its representations before the City shall on the land described in Exhibit A only construct and went on to sey single family houses and that all such single family houses shall have at least they have not applicable square feet of floor space. That certainly is not appropriate for the commercial area that they are in. But I think it should be stated what they are going to construct. I Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 46 think that it is just an agreement that we have not specifically dealt with before. So I think that we need to sit down and talk out what they are doing and what they are proposing. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion of the Council that the City Planner and the City Attorney. get with them and get that resolved before it is placed on the agenda again. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: The other thing I have is that to my knowledge this property is not contiguous yet. And it needs to be before we can. Stiles: At the last meeting we talked about this and the fact that they weren't contiguous and the fact they have submitted building plans and that those annexation ordinances were ordered. Will those be available on the 20th? Do you know yet? Crookston: I am trying to. Stiles: I know that the development agreement was made a condition of the annexation for Van Auker, I would almost think that on this particular parcel since we know what their definite plans are for the property at least as far as building department and myself and have seen plans. I was wondering why we would require a development agreement when we are going to approve a building permit for the property and we are just holding them up because of the annexation. Would it be appropriate at all to waive the requirement for a development agreement on this particular parcel and let Council review the plans that have been submitted? Or do you still #eel they would definitely have to enter into that development agreement? Crookston: I think that they need to enter into a development agreement but I would agree with you there are so many things that are already there and they have made the representations. I have no, liked we talked about today or yesterday, I have no problem with having individual development agreements for each respective owner in the Van Auker property. I think that is very appropriate but we just need to structure it so the people whose property is teeing annexed under Van Auker's application agree that they will do the development agreement. • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 47 r: Stiles: So,the statement we got from Van Auker that they approved of the findings and agreed to enter in a development agreement is not enough, you would like separate consents from each property owner? Crookston: I think so. Kingsford: Counselor, what is the difference between what Shari is suggesting and any parcel of industrial ground out here that has been subdivided and someone then picks up a building permit for a lot in it. Let's say on Lanark someone comes in with one of those vacant lots, they have exactly what these people are asking. They wouldn't have to have a development agreement. I think our intent is to know what they are developing, we have a building permit I think it meets that request. Crookston: What is not addressed are the items that are not addressed in a building permit, the landscaping. Kingsford: Those are ordinance anyway aren't they? Crookston: In large part, the annexation though we can ask for more things. I am not saying that we have to or that we should. I am just saying that if we want to this is the time when it needs to be addressed. This particular area is probably even outside of that because we are talking about commercial court that has been there for a significant period of time what the City may want to do in addition to what is already there may be quite minimal. Morrow: Let me ask you does this particular project represent one lot within an existing subdivision? Stiles: Yes Kingsford: It represents a lot in an existing subdivision that people can go to in the County and do exactly what they are asking to do and we wouldn't get a building permit. I just suggest that I don't think we ought to be making the road too rough. Morrow: Lbt me ask you this Wayne in terms of a development agreement with respect to this particular thing. You have one lot within a subdivision that already exists and (inaudible} if you do a development agreement for the one lot what issues can you really address other what is already the norm for the subdivision or what the City Ordinance would be. I don't think that as a Council member that I would be inclined to ask them for more landscaping than what the ordinance would ask for. I think that if we were going to do a development agreement within that Van Auker group we would do it on whole • IVleridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 48 portions of ground that have not been subdivided or platted or anything like that and for subdivision A these are the requirements that we want. If this is an existing subdivision then this is one lot within that subdivision i think from my perspective what we do is approve the thing subject to existing City ordinances and staff requirements with respect to the landscaping and those issues that we require by ordinance and go on from there. Because you can't resubdivide the lot without going through the subdivision process. Is the lot not small enough that you could resubdivide it anyway. Crookston: No it is a fairly large lot. I think that is right, the only thing I am going on is that we, the findings in the Van Auker annexation state that they have to a development agreement. Which for this case may not be appropriate. Ingsford: I agree that Van Auker needs to do a development agreement. I am not sure that these people need to do a development agreement. 1 guess it would be my personal drvthers that they wouldn't have to. Crookston: That is totally up to you guys. I have no objection to it, 1 am just going by (inaudible}. Kingsford: I would like to get back to the issue of where are we at with regard to contiguous. Are we going to be sitting and not letting these guys be annexed and they develop in the county and we wilt get them is to provide them sewer and water later on. I think it would be kind of neat to get a building permit here. And this is going to happen through this whole thing. How do we deal with that? Crookston: You have suggested that I prepare the annexation ordinances and I haven't looked at the chain, but to my understanding this will be contiguous when we pass those ordinances. Do you know if that is the way it is Gary or Shari? Stiles: Yes, there is one piece to the north of this subdivision that would make this contiguous. You could have just that one piece be annexed and then this would be contiguous. The remainder would not have to be annexed at this time. Although the school district is anxious to also get their site annexed into the City. Crookston: And that is part of the Van Auker request? Stiles: Yes Kingsford: So when your annexation ordinances are done we are square there. Crookston: That is my understanding. Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 49 r~ ~~ Kingsford: What is the Council's desire, do you want to go ahead with the development agreement on this issue or bag it? Morrow: Mr. Mayor my preference would be to restate the facts that this is a single lot in a subdivision with a single user and one building. We have existing ordinances that require its development we now have a format on board by which to ensure that those things, the landscaping, the drainage, the ACHD requirements, the city building department requirements are all met prior to oaoupancy which I think is what Wayne is discussing with rasped to a development agreement just ensuring those things. We have a format set up for that, my preference would be that we press on and get the thing on board and down the road. Kingsford: Was that a motion Walt? Morrow: Yes Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max in a rather length dissertation that basically said it is in a subdivision and we have coverage for all the controls that we are worried and that we are not going to require a development agreement on that parcel, discussion? Tolsma: I was thinking that if it is in that Commerce Court they have their own CC8~R's for that whole subdivision anyway. Kingsford: And they may be more stringent than ours but at a minimum ours would be enforced. All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARF~IED: All Yea Kingsford: That is the last thing I see on the agenda. Morrow: I had talked to the Mayor earlier about the trash, I gave you guys a week or 10 days ago, at the end of our strategic planning session where we were at with the first months recycling information. We now have the second months recycling information, the reason and and I have Moe here to make a short presentation tonight. It is irrFormational only that the prototype program expires January 1st at our Tuesday meeting on the 20th I want to make a decision as a Council and Mayor whether we are going to continue that program and if we are going to continue it be aware of the cost that it is going to take to continue. Befinreen now and then 1 would like to have you thinking about and we will (inaudible). So I would .like to have Moe take a couple minutes of your time to make a brief C7 Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 50 presentation in terms of where we are now. Alidjani: Mr. Mayor, gentlemen of the Gouncil, just to refresh your memory about June of this year we started a program that we tried to start a recycling program as a pilot program for 90 days. We sent out approximately 7000 flyers to each home and residence. When we got the response back we had about 232 residence that they would be supportive of the recycling program even though it would cost them some money, a dollar or 2 or 3 at that time we had no idea of how many. Also we had a response of 1241 households that they wish to participate in this program but they do not wish to pay. The rest of the account such as 4,500 of them they didn't care less either way. Have that in mind you already have a copy of the October report, if there is any question I had done detail, worked out expenses, fuel, labor, withholding, workmen's compensation, total expenses came to $1649.63. Our total revenue that you already have seen a check for from the Western Recycling and also the detail of how many pounds of newspaper, aluminum cans and so on and so forth we have taken in came to $446.57. We had a total lost of 41203.06. Also, I have added on that we needed some equipment that this loss does not include the equipment that we needed. We have purchased a 1980 Chevy pick-up truck and a trailer at $2000 postage and mailing for that flyer was $427.17 and operation expense of $1649.63 total cost was $4076.80 total revenue $446.57 total loss for that particular month including the equipment was $3630.23. The numbers on top is just the numbers of the account that we have, 232 wish to pay, 1241 they would like to participate not to pay, total account we are serving at the present time is $1473 accounts. The next page is almost the same work out for the month of November, you see the number for the fuel, labor, withholding, workman's compensation insurance, the total expense is $1512.12. Also 1 detailed out on this one that you have not seen is the how many pounds of newspaper, aluminum cans and plastic has been taken in. The volume of the recycling tremendously dropped in number. The only explanation I have is due to the fact it took us from July to October to start the program some people had been accumulating so we were taking more items. And after it became a routine of once a week. We did not take as much. Needless to say the total expense was $1512.12 and total revenue was $190.84 and we had a loss of $1321.28. On the next page you will see the receipt that we got from Western Recycling that already been presented on page 2, I just thought I would give you the original copy from what we had taken in and how many pounds. How much they pay per pound, $.45 for newspaper, that is not correct that is the number. The last page is, Councilman Morrow asked me that I would divide those numbers to the number of the account so I oould classify them as residents A are the ones that wish to participate in the recycling program and also wish to pay for that. Resident B's are the ones that do wish to participate in this program but do not wish to pay. And the C type is the total number of accounts that we are serving at this time. If I get the total cost for the October and divide it only by the class A that they wish to pay it would cyst each resident of 232 residents each one of them has to pay $5.18 to just break even for the operation expense • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 51 • including the equipment. And also the number for class B because the extra 1241 account would add onto that it would be $.82 per household and when you add both numbers together you get the class C of 1473 the number per household has cost us $.81 cents per house. From November 1st to the end of November the same procedure but the revenue went down so the cost went up per household. Class A's $5.70, B $1.06 and C $.89. Also, Councilman Morrow asked me just in case we do go City wide how do we look at numbers and figures.. Approximately we have 7400 accounts at the present time give or take 50 or 60 up or down. I have called some companies that do sell this type of equipment trucks and trailers or the bed. In order to run the City at 7300 accounts we need 3 trucks approximately prices at this time is $150,000 for the trucks and we, I would like to have this proposal to you in case you wish to consider that, is that should the bins for the recycling be distinguished color so we do not have that problem with what is trash and what is not. Those are sold at $45 a piece at 7400 accounts it is $30,000 approximately for that expense. Total of our fixed assets would be $180,000. Our operation cost would jump to about $6,000 per month. I guesstimated the revenue to be about $1500 per month. My guesstimation the cost per residence would be somewhere between $1.50 to $1.75 per account. All the numbers 1 just presented you for the City wide program is all estimating it is not exact figures. But the numbers for the trucks are very close to reality because that is what the dealers have quoted me. Ingsford: What is Boise's findings over there, is that about what they are charging extra for recycling? Alidjani: They really have a complicated situation there. What they have is they took the number, total number of the residents, and also they had a raise at the time they were doing it. At that time if you would not recycle you would only be paying so much. But if you do not recycle they would charge a dollar more. And what they figure according to IUIr. (inaudible) Boise BFI in Boise they get an average of 70 to 75% of people to participate regardless if you pay or not. They do not ever get 100% participation. And what they were banking on that there would be 25% not participating in the program bur they would be charged a dollar more. And that is how they base it on. How do they come up with those numbers I do not know. Me and Councilman Yerrington we went to 3 other meetings when this program was going on about 2 years ago 3 years ago whenever this started and that is what I heard at that time and that (inaudible). So they base it on a different, (inaudible) $2.80 per household for the recycling program. Morrow: That is the County operation they don't have the luxury of having house to house to house. Kingsford: They had some in Boise didn't they, they have a part in Boise too. • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 52 Alidjani: But as you see the program itself would not pencil out such as 178 pounds of plastic that we took in. We took in account of about 8 different trips to Westem Recycling on Cole Road and because they pay you a penny a pound you only got $1.76 for 8 trips, that doesn't even include the man labors and whatever else goes with that 8 trips to collect them. So the program itself does not pay and somehow needs to be subsidized is my recommendation. We have found out some problems that we had during this 60 days that I should bring up such as the container that they were using was not a proper container. So somehow by mistake has thrown it in the trash. I would say a margin of 1 or 2% of the volume has been wasted in that order. If we did have a container that was designated color wise for this particular reason we would have a couple % better of our proficiency. But again purchasing those bins are expensive (inaudible). As of course as you see on the third page they do not pay anything for glass of any kind. They pay $.6 for a total of one month for tin cans. It is just (inaudible) losing battle. The only 2 basic commodities we had for sale over there was the newspaper and aluminum can. The other items have no value. Any questions? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Alidjani: Once a week, same time we picked up the trash. And we tried to accommodate our employees because we did not have a colored bin specialized for recycling we would try to send first the garbage trucks and after they would go to a subdivision then the recycling pick up would follow up. So whatever was left over definitely should have been recycling material. Tolsma: (Inaudible) one week recycle newspaper, one week recycle (inaudible). Alidjani: It is possible, but 1 believe it would be more costly. What we have done in order to bring the cost down in other towns is (inaudible) go every other week. Some areas go once a month (End of Tape) small town in order to bring the cost down that would go like the last week of each month or the first week of each month. But still they would combine them together because you already have the equipment and the manpower over there. Tha problem we have is that you never know what is the tonnage you are taking on that particular time on a particular material. So when one bin gets full then you either have to go to the recycling center or come back to your yard and drop that off with another (inaudible) because you you have so many items like Westem Recycling mandate to us that we have to have brown and clear and green glass all separate. Kingsford: And they don't pay for any of it. Alidjani: So, you either have the choice of not taking any and junk it or trash it or you have to have 3 bins then you need 2 bins for newspaper because that is the most tonnage we • • Meridian City Council December 15, 1994 Page 53 take out of anywhere in town. The next one is aluminum cans and of course plastic. So you have to have 6 to 8 bins for your trailer or your truck anyway they come. On a truck they have a special bed that is made for recycling and they have the same system we have on that trailer. The problem is when one gets #ull what do you do, you are stilt going to lose time unless you start picking up paper and then you go for maybe 1 week with just paper. You have to put just as much effort because you have to go to every single house as we do right now. We go through the whole subdivision. It is extremely difficult for us after we try to line up all the addresses and go by address by address by address by address because some could be on East 5th and the other on NW 10th. So it would be a lot easier and simpler for my employee to go right after the garbage truck on the same day of the garbage day but just go an hour or 2 late. So what was left over behind was for recycling. The most sufficient way that I have seen and heard about is the one that they go once a month. Either the first or the last week of the month and they pick up everybody. The problem with that might happen is on a volunteer basis there won't be a problem because you know approximately how many number you are working with. But if it be mandatory for the city it would be extremely difficult to service that many houses in one week. Because again you have no control of the volume. Kingsford: Questions for Moe? Digest that thoroughly for the next meeting and come back. Talk to your constituency and all that sort of stuff. Cowie: I move we adjoum Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to adjoum, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Alt Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) f ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HOMAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP GREENHAVEN ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING PORTION OF THE N 1/2 NE 1/4 SE, SECTION 1, T.3N., R.lE MERIDIAN, IDABO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 11, 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 Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant not appearing but through Gary Lee, Professional Engineer, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which wasp fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 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 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 1 ~ • reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 14.88 acres in size; it is on the west side of Meridian Road between Cherry Lane Road and Ustick Road; that it is adjacent to Lansbury Subdivision; Strasser Farm Subdivision lies to the north. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but he has submitted the consent of the titled owners, John W. and Candy J. Homan and Donald F. and Rae Jean Homan. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for two residences and for limited agriculture; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for R-4 Residential development with houses containing a minimum of 1,400 square feet; that the Applicant has submitted a preliminary plat. GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 2 • 10. That Gary Lee stated at the hearing that the density would be 2.7 dwellings units per acre, that there would be a 20 foot landscaped buffer along Meridian Road, that the lots would be approximately 13,000 square feet, that the R-4 requirements would be met, the streets would meet ACED requirements, that they would request a variance on the cul-de-sac length, that the Onweiler ditch would be used for pressurized irrigation, that the road medium would be landscaped, that the homes would be from 1,400 to 1,800 square feet, and that the City Engineer's comments would be met. 11. It is also stated in the Application that Onweiler canal and other irrigation ditches would be tiled to continue delivery of irrigation water and that other smaller irrigation and drainage ditches that deliver water to this property only would be abandoned; that pressurized irrigation would be constructed to each lot and a pumping station tentatively planned to be located at the northeast corner of the development, which irrigation system would be operated by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; that access to the sewer line for purposes of maintenance, is still being worked out with the owner of the property, Mr. Bob Flaten and the developer of Lansbury Lane Subdivision, Mr. Cris Williams. 12. There were property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the annexation and zoning of the parcel: a. Rich and Gloria Fern testified that their concerns have to do with the traffic constantly being in front of their property once the development is finished with the flow coming in and out of the complex; that the Ada County Highway District and Shari Stiles have commented there GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 3 are an estimated 400 vehicle trips per day that will take place; that vehicle lights will be hitting directly onto their duplex and as the vehicles turn the lights will be crossing their entire residence; that street lighting won't be offensive if proposed; that a concern over their tenants backing out of their residences onto Greenhaven Estates Street; that adequate dumpsters be made available at the construction site to care for blowing debris and that the developer put sound walls and landscape barriers to curtail some of the noise and lessen the visual impact of headlights to preserve privacy. b. Dan Sweet testified regarding the size of the house the developer plans for this development; that the property north of this proposed development has houses in the 2600 square foot range; that when the zoning starts to go down to R-4 the size and price of the homes in the area diminish; that the Commission stick with not real expensive developments and little so so developments; that he too, is concerned about the increase of traffic. c. That John Sanford testified that his 7 1/2 acres east of Vendable Lane, which is a private, deeded lane, is landlocked; that he needs access; that he was told Vendable Lane would be made a through street when the Waterbury Park No. 5 was being developed; that the engineers for Waterbury Park No. 5 development, Brian Smith, Hubble Engineering, told him they were going to make a stipulation to cross the slough onto Mr. Sanford's property so he would have access into Waterbury No. 5; that now Mr. Smith says this is not true, that they did away with that; that kids are already coming from Lansbury Subdivision chasing his horses which are across the ditch; that Vendable Lane needs to be a public street; that the Ada County Highway District said they figured he would never want access for reasons of development because of the large arena he has for cutting horses; that Mr. Sanford never received notice of Waterbury 5 Subdivision being finally approved and that they are not going to go across the canal like Mr. Sanford was earlier told. d. That Joe Simunich testified as to the irrigation and the Onweiler Lateral; that on the plat for Lansbury Subdivision the covenants say no irrigation water will be provided to the lots; that now this developer is scheduling pressurized irrigation; that those established in the area are not likely to give up their water rights; that for years there has been a rotation on that lateral; that the question arises as to how the developer plans to water all these proposed lots on a 12 hour rotation when GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 4 • water only comes 12 hours out of every 8 days; that when these subdivisions come up, we in the area get a product or ditch or something that is unsatisfactory like fences built right on top of the irrigation line causing people not to have access to their head gates. e. Chris Williams testified that he liked the density; that he desire restriction of an entrance which included a brick wall, islands in the roadway, that the frontage setbacks be alternated, that the homes should be a minimum of 1,600 square feet. 13. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines. 17. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, the Central District Health Department, Ada County Highway District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Idaho Power, U. S. West and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did submit comments and such are incorporated GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 5 ~ r herein as if set forth in full. That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments among which were that a 20 foot minimum landscape strip is required along Meridian Road outside of the proposed right-of-way, all ditches are to be tiled and approval obtained of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District obtained prior to applying for building permits, that landscaped islands should be placed on the roadway centerline, that a variance was needed for the length of the cul-de-sac, that the property to the south has a minimum house size of 1,700 square feet, that perimeter fencing is to be installed, and a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation; that the City Engineer commented that the legal description needs to be resubmitted pursuant to Resolution 158, that the seasonal high ground water elevation needs to be determined and a profile of the sub-surface soil conditions was needed, that the irrigation ditches crossing the parcel need to be tiled, that a master street drainage plan needed to be submitted, and that the fire hydrant placement needed to be coordinated with the Water Works Department. 18. It is particularly noted that the Ada County Highway District , in its site specific requirements, stated that the stub street shown running to the north should run to the west. 19. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: ~R-41 Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 6 a ~ dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four ( 4 ) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision applied for would comply with the R-4 requirements. Z0. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 7 • ~ "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, town houses arrangementsj, ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 24. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 25. 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 GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 8 ~ r population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. 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. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. 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;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 9 • to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 10 CJ within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the 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 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 proposed 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, The Development Group, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but is at the request of the Applicant. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions GREENHP,VEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 11 a • upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be 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 the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any 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. GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 12 • 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that it is concluded that as a condition of annexation, access to the property now owned by John Sanford shall be provided; that the access shall be sufficient to meet Ada County Highway District street requirements. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies; but the land does border rural farms or ranches and those farms and ranches shall be buffered and the subdivision covenants shall let the home owners in the proposed subdivision know that the farms and ranches are there and that agricultural uses will, or may, be continued; that this matter shall be addressed in the development agreement. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that. Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-4; that the conditions should be those stated above; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 13 annexation and zoning of R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAICER) VOTED J'~l VOTED VOTED_ ~~ VOTED ~'~- VOTED RECOI~NDATION ~? The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the property be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways, and install a pressurized irrigation system, as conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de- annexed. MOTION: GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 14 C APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: GREENEAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 15 • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 15TH day of DECEMBER , 1994. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) ~~ APPROVED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - GREENHAVEN ESTATES ~ ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COI~IISSION DIANE AND ROBERT LANG REZONE APPLICATION ANTIOUE STORE 1115 E. 1ST STREET MERIDTAN~ IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Commissioner Johnson stepped down due to potential conflict of interest, the Petitioner appearing before 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 Rezone Application was published for 'two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 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 titled owners are Rod R. and Laverne W. Schoen who have consented to the rezone of the property; the property is described FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 1 in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-15 Residential; the area in which Applicant's property is located is developed as a residential area but several of the properties have been rezoned to commercial. 3. That the Applicants propose to have the property zoned (C-C) Community Commercial or (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial . 4. That the C-C District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows: (C-C1 Community Business District: The purpose of the (C-C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off- street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian . 5. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 2 constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 6. That the uses of the properties surrounding the subject property are operating businesses; two doors to the south of the subject property is Cottage Expressions, Rarate training is three doors north and the U. S. Post office is across the street. 7. That there was no testimony at the hearing objecting to the Application; that the Applicant's representative, Roen Wilson, testified that the Lang's desire to use the property for an antique and collectibles shop. 8. That sewer and water is available and are connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees. 9. That Planning & Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that this rezone complies with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the Applicant needs to submit site plan showing landscaping, parking drainage calculations, etc., in accordance with City ordinances and standards prior to opening; that the parking area cannot be closer than four (4) feet to the adjacent alley or street right-of-way; that the Ada County Highway District commented and are incorporated herein; that comments may be submitted by the City Engineer, Meridian Sewer Department and other agencies and those comments will be incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 10. That the property fronts on East First Street which is a minor arterial. 11. That proper notice has been given as required by law and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 3 • all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 Applicants' property. 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3. That the City of. Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City, of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 (R) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 4 specifically concludes as follows: (a) The property is in an area where commercial and office uses are likely to desire to locate and many of the properties in the area have been rezoned to commercial. The new zoning should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The area is on the main street of Meridian where substantial commercial property is located. A rezone of the subject property is in line with that use. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is developed in a residential fashion but has had several properties rezoned. The new zoning of C-C Commercial should not be contrary to the other uses in the area. (d) There has been a change in the area which dictates that the property should be rezoned and the area is very likely to be developed in an office or commercial fashion. (e ) That the property is designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) Commercial uses should not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property will be able to be adequately served with public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water is required. (h) Commercial uses should not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. (j ) Development should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns in that the property has good street frontage. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance . FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 5 • • (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 6. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendations and requirements of City of Meridian Departments and other governmental agencies will have to be met and complied with. 7. That any signs placed on the property shall meet the Meridian Sign Ordinance and shall not be lighted so as to shine in the eyes of des traveling on East First Street. dpi ve rs 8. That the Applicant and all users of the property shall comply with all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety codes, and the Uniform Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED G' ~ -' VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 6 :7 • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 15TH day of DECEMBER , 1994. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVED ~~ VOTED VOTED VOTED ~ ~ VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANG REZONE ~ ~ ORlGivaL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TACO BELL RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INTERSECTION OF MERIDIAN ROAD & EAST 1ST STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through the project's representative, Ron Thurber, 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 October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 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 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBH Page 1 • • 3. That the property is zoned C-G, General Service and Retail Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for a drive through window facility which the application requests, using loudspeakers. 4. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. 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 vacant and has no present use; that the property to the southeast is the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant; that the property to the north is a vacant building that has been used for truck sales and repair. 7. That the abutting properties are used for commercial purposes. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBH Page 2 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. 10. That the City Planning Director commented as to the City Ordinance requiring 19' parking spaces including three handicapped spaces visibly marked with an eight-foot access aisle; a 25' driveway aisle, as well as ACHD right-of-way and entrance corridors; five-foot (5') sidewalks are required; and communications system volume must not impact adjoining properties and encourages telephones rather than loudspeakers. 11. That the City Engineer did not file comments on the Conditional Use Application, but if he does prior to the City Council hearing they will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian Fire Department commented that all codes, water and hydrant requirements will have to be met; the Ada County Highway District submitted comments and are incorporated herein; the Central District Health Department's comments refer to stormwater management; that the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments referring to surface drainage being retained on site and recommending irrigation water be made available to all developments within the District and the District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 3 J 12. That there was no testiunony 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; 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: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 4 • • 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 Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, all parking and landscaping requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 5 • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN JOB] HEPPER VOTED~~~`~` ROUNTREE VOTE~~~~~ SHEARER VOTEI~~ "' ALIDJANI VOTE vSON (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 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 6 • L APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 15TH day of DECEMBER , 1994. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVED ,~(~ `' ~~! 1 VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - TACO BELL RESTAURANT ~ ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING CONII~iI38ION B. W. INC. DANBURY FAIR 5. 6 AND 7 ANNEBATION AND ZONING SECTION 7, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Dan Torfin, representing the Petitioner appeared 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 of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15 ) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 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. The property is approximately 32.01 acres; that the property is located within the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the Application DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATiON FF ~ CL Page - 1 • • requests three (3) parcels and to be annexed and they are adjacent to the existing developed and developing Danbury Fair Subdivision which is designated as R-8 zoning. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially and is predominantly zoned R-8. 5. That either at the hearing, in the Application, or in the letter sent with the Application, it was stated as follows: a. That Phase 5 contains 33 lots on 10.4 acres; that single family homes are proposed which is compatible with the surrounding area; that a proposed pocket park with playground equipment will be developed on this parcel as well as that the 15 to 18 feet of existing road along the Five Mile Creek could be developed as a green belt or a multi-use pathway, probably gravel, for bicyclist's, possibly equestrians and walkers; that if this pathway is developed, it is proposed that the City of Meridian take over ownership and maintenance of that pathway; that it could be incorporated into a master pathway system as things develop along the creek. b. That access will be~through the existing Danbury Fair Subdivision through a street that is currently scheduled to be constructed sometime in November; that no development would occur in that area until that street was extended; that sewer and water will be extended to serve this project. c. That Phase 6 fronts on Locust Grove Road and contains 73 lots on 18.93 acres; that upon ACED requirements, stub streets will be provided, one to the northeast corner of Phase 6 and also a stub street from #6 to a park that is proposed in Phase 3, to be developed in the spring of 1995. d. That because the City of Meridian has a requirement that blocks lengths not to exceed 1,000 feet, this application will likely seek a variance on the stub street to be developed in the northeast corner of Phase 6 because the DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF ~ CL Page - 2 block length from the stub street to the northwest corner is over 1,000 feet. e. That Phase 7 contains 12 lots on 3.07 acres and is located in the northerly portion within the original preliminary plat of Danbury Fair; that a portion just north of this parcel will be a veterinary clinic that includes some R-8 property which has been through a rezone and approved by the City Council. f . That all homes will have some brick; that the homes built will not be less than 1100 square feet and that the developer will maintain control on fences and color of exterior. 6. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 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 R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 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 houses in that zone; that the City does have an Ordinance, 11-2-411 B.2., that allows certain percentages of the DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, be 7 ANNE%ATION FF be CIS Page - 3 homes to be 1, 001 to 1,100, 1,101 to 1, 200, and 1, 201 to 1, 300; that the Applicant has stated in the Application that 1,100 square foot would be the minimum size home. 10. That in prior annexation requests the Planning Director has commented that a perimeter fence should be required; that comment is equally applicable to this annexation application. 11. At the hearing Bernadine Morgan testified that her property, containing nearly five (5) acres, is near Parcel 7; that it looks on 14 back yards and she questions whether or not that side could be fenced; that she has horses and young people from the Danbury Fair Subdivision cut across her place and she is concerned for their safety. 12. That Melinda Harper gave testimony regarding that construction workers should clean up after themselves better as they leave lunch trash behind; that adequate dumpsters and portable facilities should be made available on the job site; that safety for the children should be considered as construction workers leave lots of nails and things laying around; that street lighting should be available, and not offensive; that the speed for the traffic be reduced to 25 miles per hour because of the children living in the area; that Ms. Harper was agreeable to the graveled pathway and hoped there is a restriction on motorized vehicles. 13. That the developer of Danbury Fair, Dennis Baker testified regarding the environmental issues and the proposed pathway; that he wants the same density they asked for. 14. That written testimony was received by Douglas DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 4 • Noltemeier, a professional geographer, along with signatures of nineteen homeowners and residents living in the vicinity of Five Mile Creek who are opposed to the annexation of land adjacent to Five Mile Creek; Mr. Noltemeier and the signers are concerned over the loss of vital riparian habitat to a variety of birds; they proposes the creation of a minimum 50-foot wide greenbelt with a bike and walking path along Five Mile Creek; Mr. Noltemeier proposed planting trees, wild flowers, vegetation, additional habitat and shade which would create a more aesthetically pleasing area. 15. That comments were received from the Assistant City Engineer, City Planning Director, City Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Health, Nampa Meridian Irrigation, Idaho Power and US West; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, commented that some block lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that stub streets to the north and south need to be provided and if a variance application is granted, ten-foot-wide pedestrian walkways with five-foot paved walkways will be required; that sidewalks need to be constructed in accordance with City Ordinance, including along Locust Grove Road and Pine Avenue; that the name, address and telephone number or the owner or the subdivider needs to be added to the plats as well as easements for Five Mile Creek; that non- combustible fencing will be required outside of Settlers Irrigation DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 5 District, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, and/or Bureau of Reclamation easement areas, along with respective agency approvals, prior to obtaining building permits; that since Five Mile Creek is designated as a pathway in the Comprehensive Plan, Applicant must submit a plan in accordance with Ada County Pathway Plan; that all pedestrian walkways need proper lighting; that ditches will need to be tiled unless a variance is applied for and granted by the City Council; that the minimum house size needs to be included on the plat; that the proposed street names be shown on plat and that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 17. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Gary Smith, submitted comments among which were that the legal descriptions submitted with this application don't follow the boundaries of the preliminary plat map; that the discrepancies need to be cleared up and new legal descriptions per Resolution 158 (Aug.16, 1994) need to be resubmitted; that the seasonal high ground water elevation and profile of the sub-surface soil conditions need to be determined; that any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property to be included in this platting, shall be tiled per City Ordinance and the plan will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation district; that the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions shall be submitted for review; that a 250 Watt High Pressure Sodium Street Light will be required at the subdivision's entrance off N. Locust Grove Rd.; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this subdivision will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 6 but wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that the Applicant needs to submit information detailing the traffic impact on existing or adjacent roadways and intersections; that identification and labeling of the existing easements of record for Five Mile Creek as they pertain to this proposed development needs to be added; that the Preliminary Plat map needs to be stamped, signed, and dated by the Land Surveyor who prepared the map and indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries or any plans to reduce said boundaries; that each parcel will carry the phase number and label of the existing platted subdivisions and that water service to this development is contingent on positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 18. That the Meridian School District commented on October 10, 1994, regarding this application, that its comment made in its letter of October 3, 1994, that the District was in need of land to be dedicated or made available to the district for a school site, was in error. 19. That the Applicant did submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed; that after a review of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Fair, which was titled Benham Park Subdivision, it appears that portions of the land now requested to be annexed, which abut Locust Grove Road and Pine Street, were not portions of the original plat of Benham Park Subdivision. 20. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive DANSURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 7 • • Plan as being in an Existing Urban Area. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 25. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 26. 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;" 27. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 8 to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 28. 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. 29. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that 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 DANBURY FAiR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 9 L • approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 30. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 31. 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 DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNESATION FF ~ CL Page - 10 r~ L • in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 3Z. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCI~U3ION8 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 11 6. That the land within the proposed 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 and 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 Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 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 shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be 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 the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L, 11-9-606 b. 14 and plans for Five Mile Creek in accordance with the Ada County Pathway Plan; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 12 • 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 were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as being in an Existing Urban Area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Settlers Irrigation District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall 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 these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 14. That since only a portion of the. property proposed to be annexed now was a portion of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Subdivision, which was known as Benham Park Subdivision, that as a condition of annexation, only that portion of this DANBURY FAiR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEBATION FF ~ CL Page - 13 • Application which was a part of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Subdivision should be allowed to have houses which are less than 1,300 square feet; that that portion which is requested to be annexed and zoned which abuts Locust Grove Road and Pine Street and was not part of the original Danbury Subdivision, should meet the 1,300 square foot minimum house size in the R-8 Residential District. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER ~ VOTED / COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED -~~~ ~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the conditions are not met that the property should not be annexed, or if the land has already been annexed, that it be de-annexed. MOTION: DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 14 APPROVED: ., DISAPPROVED: DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, ~ 7 ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 15 • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 15TH day of DECEMBER , 1994. RpLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTE VOTE COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) v VOTED VOTED (INITIAL) ~j~ APPROVED i/ DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - DANBURY FAIR 5.6 AND 7 • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TWURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM I-L TO R-15 FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LMNG CENTER BY BEDELCO INC.: (~J,sz~ ~~~~~ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR t G ENH V N ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: ~-~I~J ~'~ ~~-- ~ 3. PUBLIC H NG: REQUE`ST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: I ~ e ~- 4. PUBLICCWEARIN R ~UEST FOR R ONE FRO -15 TO C-C BY DIANE AND OBERT LANG: ~ ~° Z- 5. PUBLIC HEARD: REQUES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JOHNAT~N C~BB: ~~~ 6. PUBLIC~HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDMSION NO. S, 6, AND 7 BY B.W., INC.: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PREUMINAR PLAT FOR~ANBURY FAI SUBDIVISIO NO.S,~ 6, D 7 6Y B.W., INC.: 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GROVE RU SUBDNISION BY JLG BUILDERS: 9. PUBLIC HCEARING: REQUE ~pRELIMINARY PLA FOR GROVE RUN SUBDMSION BY JLG BUILDERS: ~C~3~ ~-~-~ ~~c~-~ r 10. REQUESOR BEE AND WINE LICENSE TRANSFER BY PASTOR RAMIREZ: 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ~~ ~ ~.~.. ~~~ °~~`~- 12. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CANVEST (VAN AUKER): • ~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ~ U~ ~ ~~G~s~ L C_ ~lv - Z ~ ~~ CRi S ~• wiu.-aa __ ~ Ste. 7~2~ ______w~________ S___________~_ • • PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ~~ __ ~~~ '5~~ e't`'~ ~ 9''. .rte .. ~ / ~ ', !~~-~~ .. 3. ~ ~ ~~ '"'~4~~~ q ~ au/` ~°k~i1 1 ~'] aL /I/IS~2~/cam ~ IM td ~ r+~ M xy~, w ~; ;~''..t `r ~ ~,.. fir. `~ t ; an r (.. £~ Q~~+ ~ k l ~ j` ~ , ~ ;,i ~ ~ i .t ~t7 ~~~~~~~~~i~~ 4r Y YF ~,"~7 1 ~- ~}~ ~ J ~. yY~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W t~J ~ C^~2~ - n . i~ yr' r ~ / . l ~ a `/ ~/ h ~ ,E ~h' 3~ i~ ~ '~' it ~t~ a _ 3~ Y t ~ ~~ ~ y ;~ .t~s y - ~ - •~S _sf ~dnv ~ r . d..~ '~ ~ ~~ +k ~ _ Y 4 ~~ a? .. ~~~M~ DEC ~'~5" ~ .. g. ~ _~ ~~ CI`~'~, ;, ,_ :. ~~ .~.~, ~ ~;_ s ~- ..