Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 06-09~' A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 ITEM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1992: (APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT BY BODINE OIL & FOOA~7AKF12 INC. FOR DRIVE-IN RESTUARANT: (APPROVED) 2: FIIVllINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATI~I & 20NING W/CONDITIONAL USE PEFd~1iT FOR PUD GENERAL REQUEST BY CAPITAL .CHRISTIAN CENTER: (APPROVED) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR C~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USID CAR & TRUCK LDT AT 12 EAST ADA STREET FOR BETTY CAVANAUGH: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PRFT.TMTNARV PLAT, PARKSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION, L & R SALES:(APPROVED) 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELII~IIIVARY PLAT, MERIDIAN GREENS #3, GLENCO, INC.(APPROVED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY JOHNSON & L.B. PROPERTIES: (FINDINGS ~ BE PREPARED) 7: PETITION TO AMEND THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE:(TABLED) MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING JUNE 9 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Moe Rlidjani, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree: Others Present: Annette Alonzo, Rod Trumbull, Don Byron, Karin L. Hagan, Chuck Fuller, Norman Fuller, Ralph Shoemaker, Dennis M. Baker, J. Connolly, Rex Harrison, Karen Engelund, Carter Engelund, George & Mildred Davis, Larry Bertetto, Jerry Pollard, Michele Gamblin, Wayne Crookston, Dan Richard, Angela Richard, Joan Cavanaugh, Dan Bradley, Don Hubble, Albert Chastain, Arlene Travis, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1992: The Motion was made by Rlidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held May 12, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BODINE OIL AND FOODMAKER INC. FOR R DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT: Johnson: Rnybody have any comments or discussion? Alidjani: What did we do with that curb cut in front of First Security? Johnson: R11 we have done in that respect is to put in a condition about solving the traffic problem without getting specific as to how we are going to do that. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Rlidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that 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 Rpplicant for the property described in the application if the Rpplicant can propose, and the MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PRGE 2 City can agree on such proposal, a solution to the traffic problem and congestion on the streets adjacent to the proposed use and in the parking lot adjacent thereto and that the approval be subject to the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian and be subject to site planning review. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND AND ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL USE CAPITRL CHRISTIAN CENTER: Johnson: Any discussion? No r The Motion was made by Alidjani Meridian Planning and Zoning approves these Findings of Fact CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATION PERMIT FOR PUD GENERAL REQUEST BY esponse. and seconded by Shearer that the Commission hereby adopts and and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Annexation and Zoning requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application and approve the conditional use permit for a planned unit development with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicants apply for a variance if it desires not to have to t he all ditches and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the Applicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #3: PUBLIC HERRING: REOUEST FOR R CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A USED CAR AND TRUCK LOT AT 12 EAST RDA FOR BETTY CAVRNRUGH: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative present? Joan Cavanaugh, 745 S. Blackcat Rd., Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 3 Cavanaugh: I have prepared a better map of the project - passed out copies to the Commission Members. Johnson: So you've purchased a building to be moved to the location? Cavanaugh: We have. I think you were concerned about entrance and exit off of Meridian Road and you were concerned about a tree that would hamper a right hand turn from the property onto Rda Street. The tree has to be removed and will be which would allow a clear right turn onto Ada Street from the property. I don't foresee a large amount of traffic, this is going to be a small car lot. Clerk Niemann: How many cars are you planning on having? Cavanaugh: Five or six at the very most. Alidjani: What size of truck are you talking about? Cavanaugh: Full size car or truck. Alidjani: Show me on this map where you plan to park these. Cavanaugh: Explained parking. Hepper: Would the offices be strictly for conducting of business for the car lot or would you be leasing out some of the space? Cavanaugh: I would to have the option to have, if the car lot say did not work, to be able to use the building for real estate, doctor, lawyer, or lease in out in that manner. The building is large enough to hold a second person business. R real estate company has expressed interest in leasing part of the building if it would be permitted. We would like that option. Johnson: So it's approximately 1500 sq. ft. Cavanaugh: Right. It would be placed on a permanent foundation. Hepper: What's the age of that building? Cavanaugh: I don't have any idea. Hepper: What is the exterior of the building? Cavanaugh: I believe it's a stucco exterior with wood on the bottom. • • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 4 Hepper: I can see a possible problem with the flood lites shining out in back there with residences out that back side there. Cavanaugh: We are open for suggestions. Hepper: I think you will have to redesign your flood lltes where they point back the other way away from the residences. Johnson: Rre you looking at this for a full time enterprise for someone? Cavanaugh: It's a small dealership, primarily it's wholesaling and there will be some retailing to the public. Johnson: Initially what would you be thinking in terms of hours? Cavanaugh: Probably nine to six something of that nature. Rountree: Have you read the comments from the City Engineer? Cavanaugh: I have. Rountree: Particularly the comment with respect to paving the entire site with the exception of the landscaped areas. Your drawing doesn't indicate that that's the situation. Cavanaugh: We had planned on paving the lot but not right away unless we have to da that, especially the driveway. That wouldn't be a problem with paving it. Rountree: Jack, isn't that an Ordinance that it be paved? Yes it would have to be paved. Can you give me an idea of how close you are proposing this entry off of Meridian Street to the intersection of Ada and Meridian. Cavanaugh: On my drawing I made it directly from the street but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I've never planned a drawing for a business before so you'll have to bear with me. Johnson: That property has quite an elevation difference between Meridian Road and the property itself. Rre you going to address that? Cavanaugh: We have looked at that. We figured it needed to be raised to proximity of the street level. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 5 Rountree: How would you propose to handle the on-site drainage retention? Cavanaugh: I don't know what is required. Rountree: It would be required. Johnson: That's one of the City Engineer's recommendations in his comments. Rlidjani: Is there being done? Cavanaugh: No. The vehicle or to change Johnson: Thank you. Jim Matlock, 20 E. A going to be any maintenance or any repairs most that would be done would be to wash a a tire. Anyone else to testify? ga St., was sworn by the attorney. Matlock: Actually I'm the only adjoining property to this piece of property. Anything would be better than a weed lot. I've talked to these people and I feel very comfortable with their proposal. Basically I see no problem what so ever. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Karin Hagan, 25 E. Ada, was sworn by the attorney. Hagan: I just agree with Mr. Mattock's comments. Anything would be better than a weed patch. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for this project. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PRGE 6 ITEM #4: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLRT FOR PARKSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION - L & R SRLES: Rountree: I wish to step down due to a conflict of interest. Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative present? Don Hubble, Hubble Engineering, 7025 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Hubble: Presented a map of the project to the Commission. This project is located near the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road. The project site consists of about 90 acres, the proposed project shows 290 single family residential lots. We are proposing to develop this thing, take an access in three spots from the existing roadways. We'll have an access on Ten Mile Road and two on Cherry Lane. The street going through the middle of the property will be designed as an ACRD Class Collector Road. It will be 60 feet of right of way, the pavement will be 41 feet from back of curve to back of curve and they have indicated that their desire to have this classified as a collector. The balance of the streets in here will be defined as RCHD residential streets. We have two culdesacs that are longer than the City Ordinance of 500 feet, so we are also asking for a variance from that requirement of less than 500 feet. The developer is willing to put in adequate fire protection facilities, fire hydrants as necessary at these long culdesacs. The project is going to be served by City Sewer. Presently the existing sewer is over on the north side of Cherry Lane Road. We are proposing to gravity the eastern two thirds of this project down to a point which would probably gravity into this existing main line. (Explained two options - see tape) The project will be served by City Water, we've got a 10" main line on the north again and we've got a 10" main line over here in Ten Mile Road. We are proposing to connect the two from the project so the water system will be looped and will also provide a full loop wherever possible. All the public utilities will be provided. As far as irrigation, the developer hasn't decided whether to provide a deposit in for the City trust fund for water development or to put on site irrigation, but he aware of that requirement. I would like to point out a Flood Plain Study that has been done on Ten Mile Creek. The boundary of that 100 year flood plain is off this proposed project. The developer is proposing to provide the land and construct the improvements for a parking lot which can be used MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 7 ~~ for the people that use Fuller Park. It's currently served by a non-paved road into the project. That access will be maintained during the construction of the project and the way it's described right now, there is a temporary easement over that access road so once there is a permanent access provided to the park then that temporary one can be abandoned. Johnson: Then the traffic to the park would go through the subdivision? Hubble: Yes. This project also has numerous pedestrian access points for the park, those will be on an easement and those individual accesses will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Johnson: Those are all on lot lines? Hubble: Yes. The School has asked the developer to provide a permanent access through one of these culdesac's if they acquire this site and the developer has offered to extend that street so they will have a permanent public access to the school site. He has also offered to provide water and sewer stubs to that school site and other utilities as needed. We reviewed the comments by Gary Smith. If I could go through those real quickly - as far as the culdesac length variance request he says that an additional fire hydrant will be required at each culdesac and we agree with that. He mentioned that Pine Creek Court could connect with Fir Creek Court to eliminate one of the long culdesacs. The developer would prefer not to connect that if your willing to grant that variance on the culdesac. Another comment is that several lots appear to be less than 8,000 sq. feet, we would just like to assure you that during final plat we are aware of that requirement and all lots will be 8,000 sq. feet. Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road need to show 40 ft. of right of way from the centerline. The developer is prepared to do this. (Went over further comments - see tape) Johnson: That existing well pump and well, is that on this property? Hubble: Yes. The homeowners will maintain the walkways. (Went over further Engineer comments concerning storm drainage system - etc. - see tape) Will work with Engineer. Johnson: Did you have any comments on what the Fire Department had to say? Or did you get a copy of those? Hubble: We did get a copy of that. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PRGE B Johnson: Rny more questions far Mr. Hubble? Alidjani: What's the possibility of having more parking spaces, I don't feel that 100 parking spaces is adequate far that area? Hubble: The final design far that parking lot hasn't been done and I guess I could speak for the developer in saying that he is willing to work with the City if there is additional need. Hepper: On the Collector Street, normally Ada County Highway District , and they may have something in their comments about having access onto a Collector Street, normally that's not allowed. From what I can see on your map there, you've got several lots that front onto the Collector Street, is that right? Hubble: Yes, I believe we have eight lots that front onto that street. In discussions with the new Development Services Manager down there, his interpretation of that frontage requirement may be a little bit different than what they've had in the past. What they have requested in the past is that any lot that front's onto that Collector Street must have an on-site turn-around, so what they are trying to discourage is anybody having to back onto that Collector Street they want to be able to turn around on their lot and pull out in a forward direction. Hepper: So how do you provide for that an an 80 foot frontage lot? Hubble: What we'd like to do is present that to ACHD. We don't believe that this is going to function as a true Collector Street. Hepper: Here in your application you say the minimum square footage of the structures is to be 1500 square feet, is that correct? Hubble: Yes. Crookston: How do the accesses onto Cherry Lane align with the current accesses into Cherry Lane Village? Hubble: The most westerly access point is several 100 feet off- set from that existing street. Then the other access point is directly across the street so it's in alignment. Crookston: I would have some concerns about having intersections that aren't aligned. It's difficult to control traffic that way I understand. My other question is on the well that was referenced in the discussion prior, do you know how deep that well is? MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 9 Hubble: I don't have any idea, we could find out. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? George Davis, 4225 W. Cherry Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Davis: What is the size of the lots? Johnson: Minimum is 8,000 sq. feet. Davis: And this parking lot, I didn't understand how many cars this was capable of handling. Rountree: Approximately 100. Davis: We adjoin this on the west end of it, we've been there nearly 30 years and we don't feel this is anything we want in our neighborhood. We oppose this and I am against destroying this prime farm ground. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Dan Richards, 4135 W. Cherry Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Richards: I own five acres along this project and have some questions about the property pins, the irrigation, and is there going to be some kind of landscape along Cherry Lane? I'd like to know what their plans are, if they are going to t he that ditch or what? Johnson: With respect to the covenants, we don't get involved in those. There is some value ranges on the application which says value of the property would range from S95 to 5160 and going up. Richards: I would also like to know about fencing along the back. That's all I have, I am against this. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Don Bryon, 2070 N. Locust Grove Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Bryon: Concerns about school overcrowding. The biggest concern I have is with this fencing of developments next to agricultural property. Shearer: Didn't you complain about your fence being buried? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 10 Bryon: Yes but it didn't do any good. I complained about my ditch being eliminated, I complained about my fence being buried, I complained about not getting paid for the irrigation I put in but I was complaining to a developer and he was just lying to me. Shearer: Do you still get irrigation then or did they cut off your irrigation? Bryon: They eliminated the irrigation to my orchard. Further Discussion. (see tape) Johnson: Anyone else? Rex Harrison, 1300 N. Ten Mile Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Harrison: I just live across the street from this property on Ten Mile there. My driveway is directly across the street from that road that's going through there. I feel that this subdivision is an example of somebody trying to get every last inch out of a large piece of property. The families that go in there aren't going to have enough room to have a garden or anything else. I feel it's up to you to ensure that the developer gives them a decent size lot to work with. I'm opposed to the density of that subdivision. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Charlie Rountree, 3851 Woodmont, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Rountree: I'm here tonight to represent Western Ada Recreation District as the Chairman of the District. In that capacity this evening I do not speak for the entire board, we've not yet been able to convene and discuss this issue. But as Chairman and the operator's and owners of Fuller Park, we have been in discussion with L & R Development for about four weeks. We have some concerns, they have heard our concerns and they made a proposal to us and it's my opinion that some of the recommendations or proposal's they have made to us will not be acceptable to the Board. (Further explanation - see tape) The parking as proposed in terms of space, I think is adequate. Hepper: Would a fence between the residential area and the park be a possible partial solution to the complaints? Rountree: I don't know that establishing your territory in that way would resolve this. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 11 Alidjani: Rt the present time there is no fence around that pond. What would make a difference in the future except more traffic, foot traffic - Rountree: That's it, right now we have our access road gated and have a keep out sign on it and there is no development around this. Alidjani: Would it be more comforting and take care of your concern if those walkways are not there at all? Rountree: The only problem with the walkways there now is that there is nothing there for them to go to, there's no developed park there, it's a maintenance area. In that regard I would just as soon the walkways not be in that particular location with the park being set up the way it is. Johnson: Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify? Angela Richard, 2135 W. Cherry Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Richard: I have a personal hate for dogs and I just request that they have a no-dog complex go in there. Concerns about added traffic and noise. Johnson: Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify? Dan Bradley, 3717 Quaker Ridge, was sworn by the attorney. Bradley: My question is about the traffic on Cherry Lane, it will have to be expanded to a four lane road or something. Which way is that going to be expanded? Into their subdivision or into Cherry Lane Village? Crookston: All along there there is road easement and there's the irrigation easement. Bradley: My question is not being answered, is the road going to be in my back yard? I just want to make sure they plan for it now so that it doesn't go into my back yard. Crookston: The Ada County tend to take the road fart line, they will want to have of center line eventually. that's not City controlled would tend to have it go. Highway District probably will not per south than 40 feet from center that road go forty feet either side It would move towards your lot, but that's the direction that RCHD MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 12 The proper thing, if you have objection is to go to ACHD and raise the issue. Alidjani: I think you have a lot more than that from the center. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Carter England, 3760 Quaker Ridge, was sworn by the attorney. England: I don't have any problem developers. I have a major concern educational facilities available for as this town. Who is going to pay for th hear from you to tell me that you facilities and who is paying for them. with the development or that we don't have the rapid as we are expanding ese schools? I want to have planned far school Johnson: There's been a lot of discussion about the impact fees with respect to educational facilities but the State Law prohibits it and it would have to go to the Legislature to get it changed. England: I hope you take into consideration whether or not we have enough fire, ambulance, sewer, water, etc. - It seems that development is absolutely going rampid in Meridian. Johnson: It certainly We do have a letter concern. The Meridian and what we try to do which is the City of growing area and will concerns. is. We can control it to some extent. from the School District expressing their School District is much more than Meridian is work within where we have jurisdiction Meridian and our impact area. We are a continue to be. We do appreciate your Crookston: I appreciate your comment that you'd be willing to serve on a committee but I'm not sure that the community as a whole is aware of what happened in our Legislature this year as far as the schools. There was a proposal before the Legislature to require impact fees and they granted the ability for various local governing bodies to impose impact fees, but the only entity that it didn't grant that to were School District's. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I'd like to hear from the developer to answer some of these concerns. Rod Trumbull, PO Box 36, Caldwell, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 13 Trumbull: The zoning is R-4 which allows four per acre, and we are at 3. 2. We've increased the lot size. They will accommodate three car garages. Everything we are building is an average between 1700 and 2000 sq. ft.. 60X of the people that we are marketing to in there are retired. They are really an asset to the community. Large lots are not always the answer. If they get this area, we told them we would provide sewer, water, power and gas to the site. Explained haw they would extend one of the roads to the school. We want to work with the Parks Department also. (Explained further - see tape) Johnson: Do you have an objection to working with some of the suggestions such as connecting those two culdesacs? Respond to the comment that you are trying to squeeze as many lots into this area as possible. Trumbull: Marketing wise we would like to leave in the culdesacs. We are at a 3.2 density now. Johnson: A comment was made that there are lots in there less than 8;000 sq. feet, are there? Trumbull: There may be one or two that are borderline but we will adjust them. Johnson: What about landscaping? Trumbull: There will be a berm with landscape along Cherry Lane. Johnson: A comment was made about fencing. Trumbull: What we've been talking about with the parks department is a chain link fence in here for a border line. Alidjani: What do you think about the expense for the parking lot? Trumbull: A lot of that will depend on what the school decides. Rlidjani: That irrigation ditch that is concrete main and also the eighteen foot of dirt road easement, is it on the subdivision side or on the park side? Trumbull: No it's in the subdivision. Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 14 Dan Richard: Does he plan on fencing along the residentials in the back? Trumball: Basically it's up to the individual. Johnson: Rnyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. Any discussion? Shearer: I wanted to address the minimum lot size for an R-4 is 8000 sq. feet and our engineer on this project has assured us that all lots will meet the minimum size. I don't think our board can require more than the minimum size. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning recommends to the Meridian City Council approval of the preliminary plat with a couple stipulations. The first being that they work out the parking lot costs with Western Ada Recreation and come to some mutual satisfaction of the two parties and secondly that any ditches that the property line is in the middle of the ditch, the ditch is to be tiled. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #5: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FDR MERIDIAN GREENS #3, GLENCO INC.: Johnson: Is there someone representing the applicant? I will now open the public hearing. Don Hubble, Hubble Engineering, was sworn by the attorney. Hubble: The is an extension of the existing Meridian Greens Subdivision, this is the next phase to the south. Explained location of existing phase and new phase to be added - see tape. This proposed project consists of 168 lots, the density based on this lot size is right around two lots to the acre. These are larger lots. The average lots are 100 x 125, so they are roughly 12,000 sq. ft. lots. The subdivision will take access in two different points on Overland Road. (Explained access points) SE 3rd is constructed as a Collector Street, it's forty one feet from back of curb to back of curb but it's inside a fifty five foot right of way. SE 5th is also constructed to Collector standards and ACHD has required that if we design it as a Collector Street to a point down here where we have fewer than MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 15 100 lots, then they said that they would accept a residential classified street. We are proposing however to construct this as a Collector Standard Street clear through to this point (shown on map). We have one culdesac that is going to exceed the length and we request consideration for a variance for the length of that. The one difference in these culdesacs is that they are going to be larger than what's required so that they can accommodate some additional landscaping and parking spaces. The project will be services by City sewer. Alidjani: On the long culdesac, do you have plans for a fire hydrant? Hubble: We will provide for fire hydrants so that they will meet the maximum distances. We've been working with the City Engineer on these. A portion of this is within the 100 year flood plain. We are proposing to work with FEMA to fill that site to raise it to an elevation above that 100 year flood plain elevation and withdraw it from the Flood Plain area. We prepared a traffic study during Meridian Greens #2 which included projected traffic impact from this area too. Gave summary of traffic study - see tape. Highlighted a couple of the Engineer's comments that they would like consideration on. #1) Is that the street name shall be in accordance with the review of the Ada County Street Name Committee - the developers would like your cooperation to work with that committee to name some of these streets. It appears that the street name committee would like different names for each one of these culdesacs and the developers think that it might be mare clear if they had the same thing, we'd like to work with them. One other consideration would be in the name of Ten Mile Creek - it shows on existing maps and we'd like to continue that name rather than call it Ten Mile Drain. One other consideration we'd like you to address here is that your Engineer has asked for street light locations at a maximum of 400 foot spacing. If you are familiar with the existing subdivision, they have yard lights that are on photocells and the developer would like to do the same thing here. To put street lights at the intersections, but then the streets in between have them done with yard lights. In regards to pressurized irrigation system, we haven't decided whether to contribute to the fund or to provide the system. In the review by ACRD, they have requested that SE 5th not be continued south of this cross street at this location. Instead they would like to see it continued at one of the other street locations. (Further explanation - see tape) MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNG 9, 1992 PAGE 16 r~ Rountree: I don't really have a question, it's more of a comment and trying to find out what discussions you've had with ACHD. I know of the concerns that are going to be expressed. I know ACHD in cooperation with Ada Planning Association have retained a consulting Engineering firm to do a traffic study. Have you talked to RCHD about strategies like speed bumps or restricted areas? We all want these wide streets, but the wide streets are the problem in terms of traffic speeds. The wider they get the faster people ga. Hubble: We haven't talked to them specifically about speed bumps, but we have talked in terms of curb radius and so forth. In their awareness of this problem, it was their suggestion to not continue S.E. 5th to the south. Johnson: I missed you complete comment on the Chekena Estates hookup. You said something with respect to tieing into that which exits through Locust Grove Road I believe. Hubble: Right, one of the conditions during Meridian Greens #2 was that Mesa Way be continued to Meridian Greens. So that portion of the street has been designed but not constructed. Hepper: Was is the minimum square footage of the houses? Johnson: The application says 1500 sq. ft. Hepper: Is that right? Hubble: That is what is on the application, but the developer told me today that 2200 square feet is going to be the minimum. Johnson: The 12,500 minimum square foot lot, is that an unusual size lot in there or is that standard? Hubble: That's not minimum, that's the average size that we were shooting for. There may be same lots that are smaller than that. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Larry Bertetto, 665 Antigua, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 17 Bertetto: I've got two comments that I'm going to make. There's two problems that we face in Meridian Greens and one is water. I was before the City Council on March 4th saying we have a water problem and that was acknowledged by the Mayor, and everyone that yes we need a booster pump. I believe that the City made an emergency recommendation that this booster pump be set in so we can have water pressure. The developer has given the City to put in a well and a boaster pump. On May 8th I got a copy of a letter that said that an emergency existed and there would be a meeting on June 1st to look into this to get this situation corrected. (tape ended) We are looking at turning soil in another place out there and we don't have water pressure yet. I'm tired of getting complaints about the water. I'm not against planned growth. Until we get this problem remedied, let's take care of us before we move more in. Expressed concerns about additional traffic impact. There is an access road that not to long ago was going to go out to Meridian Road, that I understand has gone by the way-side. The developer also mentioned that they are going to put in a parking area in some of these culdesacs. Who maintains those? We want growth but we want it planned. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Annette Alonzo, 1928 S.E. 5th, was sworn by the attorney. Alonzo: I live on S.E. Sth in the first phase, I have three young children and the only way they can associate with the other children in the subdivision, because of our situation with the ditch behind us, is to cross the street. That road is travelled very fast at this time. Concerns about speeding vehicles, suggested building of a sky bridge across the road. Expressed further concern about traffic and children being able to cross the road. We have a very nice development but the only thing I've been hearing about our subdivision the most is that we have no common green area for children, walkways, any nice area where you can go with your family in the subdivision. Johnson: The sky bridge across is against the covenants. The maintenance is definitely a problem with a common green area. Alonzo: The other problem is our pressurized irrigation system, it is inadequate to handle what we have now. The system is not adequate. I would just suggest that we modify SE 5th and take these other comments into concern. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 18 Arlene Travis, 580 E. Linkershim, was sworn by the attorney. Travis: Currently 5th Way as it goes out to Overland, where it comes off of Antigua and stubs out to Overland is a construction entrance. It is just paved, it has no gutters, it's not a Collector, and it's designated as a construction entrance. So as all of these other homes develop in this area, not only will it be holding the traffic of the subdivision but every cement truck and others. My concern is, do they have another construction entrance that they are going to use to finish the rest of this subdivision or is it all going to be funneled in through the main part? I do have problems with water also. Johnson: As far as I know there is not another entrance for construction. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Michele Gamblin, 1927 SE 5th Way, was sworn by the attorney. Gamblin: Rlso I live on 5th Way and I agree with all of the comments that have been said here tonight. The traffic is a real problem with the children, I do have kids and I do have a Day Care. Something needs to 6e done to slow the traffic down. I also agree with the idea of having a park. Johnson: Why did you buy out there if there was no park in the area? Gamblin; I didn't take the time to consider how big the place was going to get. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Jerry Pollard, 598 E. Kingsford, was sworn by the attorney. Pollard: I just wanted to state that the water pressure out there is still a major problem, also the pressurized irrigation. Johnson: Rre there good times and bad times for the irrigation? Pollard: There are good times and bad times. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Virginia Christensen, b35 E. Antigua, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 19 Christensen: My comment is more of a suggestion that the Collector Street as it was designed in the subdivision that I came from had a number of different paths. There were a number of those kind of jags and I didn't have the concern that I'm hearing tonight. Suggested putting in cross drains. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing at this time. Discussion. (See tape) The Motion was made by Shearer to approve the preliminary plat. Rountree: Discussion please. The traffic concern is something I sympathize with these folks on. There are some solutions and I would recommend that a condition be added to Mr. Shearer's motion that this be a condition of approval of the subdivision that those things be investigated and incorporated into the development. Shearer: I will add that to my original motion. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to approve the preliminary plat with the condition of an intense traffic study in an attempt to correct this problem. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM 736: PUBLIC HERRING: FOR ANNEXATIDN AND ZONING REQUEST BY JOHNSON AND L. B. PROPERTIES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there someone representing the applicant that would come forward please. John Connolly, 134 S. 5th, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Connolly: I am here representing L.B. Properties tonight. We brought in an application to incorporate an area into the City. It's approximately eight acres on Fairview Avenue. In my review of the Comprehensive Plan it appears as though the City can annex this into the City. There is an existing commercial auto sales lot on site that was granted a conditional use permit by the County within the last five years. Rather than just leave that as a grandfather right coming in, we decided to apply to have the conditional use permit continued to bring this up to the full MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 20 legal authority within the City limits. We feel that we are contiguous to the City borders. The existing commercial use will continue in the future. My client is considering other commercial uses including same sort of a storage facility on the back portion of the property. We would appreciate a recommendation of approval. Johnson: I need to enter a letter into record from a Mr. Dennis Baker. This letter states basically, it requests for a buffer area, and landscaping. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Discussion. Dennis Baker, 3519 Grover Crt., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Baker: I am the developer and owner of Danbury. My concern is not necessarily to hold up this annexation or rezoning, it's to express my concern in regard to the transition from a potential commercial annexation and zone in Meridian that would be abutting a residential subdivision. The Danbury Subdivision was approved last year by the City Council. The first phase has about nine lots that abuts the south boundary of this proposed annexation and rezone. We have constructed those lots and we have completed the paving about two weeks ago. We are planning approximately 230 lots between Pine Street to the south and Fairview to the north. Voiced concerns about transitional zoning between residential and commercial industrial that there is a buffer provided to protect those residential property owners. It's my request that you consider putting a condition on the annexation and rezoning for some type of buffer to 6e provided. Usually it's 300 feet. We have two of the lots that back up to this property that have already been sold. I will disclose to these people that there is a possibility for some commercial development to the north. It's my request that some serious consideration be given. Alidjani: How many lots or how many linear foot is between the boundary of two properties, one commercial verses residential? Johnson: Nine. Hepper: Is there a buffer between your commercial property and your residential? ~~ ~ i MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 21 Baker: That's a good question and at this point I would expect that we should be submitted and requested to have design review and conditional approval from whatever development would take place in that commercial zone. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? No response. Is there anything you'd like to add. Connolly: Just briefly. From the assessor's map you have in front of you this property is 660 feet deep and obviously a 300 foot buffer would take half of it and we feel that's unreasonable. We've always been willing to conform to the requirements that the City code requires us to. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Albert Chastain, 1065 E. Fairview, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Chastain: What I'd like to know, is on the west side of that property is an irrigation ditch. Will that be tiled, the same as on the Baker property if it's developed? Johnson: We have an ordinance that they have to t he all ditches when it's developed. Chastain: Any development in there would certainly help with the weed problem we've had in the past. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rlidjani to have the attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning & Zoning recommends favorably with some research to the buffer zone or screening as required by our ordinances. Motion Carried: 3 Yea; 1 Nay: MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JUNE 9, 1992 PAGE 22 I ITEM k7: PETITIDN TO AMEND THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINRNCE: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to table item 3V7 until the Special Meeting on June 25, 1992 at 5:30 P. M.: Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 10:55 P. M.: Motion Carried: R11 Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) RTTEST: APPROVED: V - v _ I HNVVS__ON, CHAIRMAN BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ELNORA JOHNSON AND LB PROPERTIES ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH CONDITIONAL USE A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on June 9, 1992, 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, appearing through John Connolly, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AM BROBE, F1T2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Allomeye enA Counselors v.o. eo=u~ Merl0len, loeno B3BIt Tslsplwna BBBJMI 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning with conditional use was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 9, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 9, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 AM BROBE, FI72GERALD d CROOKBTON Attomsya An0 Counesloro P.O. Bov lZ7 MN101An, IENo 83M2 TsI~PMna BBBIM/ reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 8.29 acres in size; it is generally located at 1005 E. Fairview; that Fairview Avenue is a principal arterial as set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the property is presently zoned under Ada County as C2 with a conditional use permit for an automobile sales lot, and the remaining property is zoned under Ada County as RT Rural Transition (RT); that the use would be for a car sales lot; the Applicant requests zoning of CG and a conditional use permit for a car sales lot. 4. The general area surrounding the property in used commercially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That Elnora L. Johnson is the owner of record and she has consented to the Application. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned CG and that a conditional use be granted for a car sales lot; that the present use of the property is commercial. 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 11. That the property is in the EAST INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the property can be serviced with City water and sewer, and the sewer service would be available in Danbury Fair Subdivision and at a sewer line crossing Five Mile Creek approximately 300 feet west of the properties west boundary. 13. Ada County Highway District (ACRD), the Department of Health, Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, and Meridian School District submitted comments and such will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that ACRD approved the sales lot plan when Application was made to Ada County. 14. That the CG 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. 15. That proper notice was given as required by law and all AMBROSE, FIRGERALD B CROOKSTON Attomaye uW Counselors P.O. Boa X27 MarlAlsn, IUNo 83614 Telspnone BBBJ161 and followed. procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 AMBROSE, FI72GERALD 6 CROOKBTON Allorneye end Counselors P.O. Box ~Y7 MatlElen, IEeNo &'1814 Tsleptrone 888~~81 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 i1-2-417 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 the provisions contained in Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice; that the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged the application for conditional use under the requirements of 11-2- 418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Allomeye and Counaelon P.O. Box /2T MerlElen, IBNo BT8/2 TelePNOns 8881/81 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 consented to by the owner and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 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; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the car lot paved area must meet the requirements of the City of Meridian's off- street parking, pertaining to lighting, landscaping, and site storm water disposal. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained, and that the street right of way of Fairview to the centerline be included in the annexation. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in the EAST INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5 Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned as requested; that the conditions should be those stated above and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met. 13. That any of the requirements of the Nampa Meridian District shall be met as well the requirements of the City Engineer. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of CG would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance for the use. AM BROSE, FITZGERALD dCROOKSTON Attorneys en0 Counselors P.O. BOZ It7 Msrlolen, IONo 836/2 TelspNOM BBBls81 b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use as a planned unit development. c. The use as shown by drawings with the application should be designed and should be constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the access and traffic requirements of the City and the Ada County Highway District should be met and if they are, traffic should not increase significantly because of the proposed use. e. That the property has available to it water service and the Applicant can provide sewer service as there is sewer service available approximately 300 feet west of the properties west boundary. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services if the Applicant meets the requirements of the City and Ada County Highway District 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 and the parking layout must meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance and should be subject to design review since it is a planned unit development. 17. It is further concluded that any comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, the Ada County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire Department, will have to be met and complied with. AMBROSE, PITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attomaye end Counselors P.O. Boa 127 MBriCI~n, IEMD 83812 TalaD~ona 8881181 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7 .~ ~- 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 ti,~ ~-~- COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED 'Z'~" COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED_ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Annexation and zoning requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application and approve the conditional use permit for a car sales lot with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: ITZG ERALG APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: dCROOKSTON --" "' Attomeya ane Counselors P.G. ROR AZT Menm.n, ieano eae/s Tslaptw~ro emr~et FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho June 8, 1992 ~, _ ~~ ~'i ~ fi1 ~1 ~ ._ REF: Elnora Johnson/LB Properties Annexation and Zoning 8.29 acres located at 1005 E. Fairview Dear Mr. Niemann and Commission Members: I own and am developing the residential property known as Danbury Fair Subdivision, located adjacent to the south boundary of the above referenced property. The applicants, Elnora Johnson and LB Properties, are asking for annexation and rezoning designation of CG Commerical from the City of Meridian. If the Commission and Council decide to annex and rezone with a Commercial designation the aforementioned property adjacent to new residential single family homes, then a buffer should be required. I find that a Commerical designation to this request without proper buffering would pose considerable detrimental problems for the residents whose rear yards abut this property. This would not be good planning unless a landscaped buffer of approximately 200 to 300 feet in width along the entire south boundary of the applicants' property is required. In this buffer area, attention should be paid to proper lighting, fencing and landscaping. Concerning the lighting, I ask that no lights be allowed in the buffer area. Six foot fencing should be required which is compatible with the wood fencing used in most residential areas. Landscaping, which includes trees and shrubs, should be used to impede the intrusion of commerical noise and lighting to the residences. Thank you for your attention to and consideration of good planning procedures. Sincerely, '_. Dennis M. Baker