The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 01-119 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 14, 1993: (APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: TABLED AT DECEMBER 14, 1993 MEETING: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1994 MEETING) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISON BY D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: (APPROVED) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 31, 1994 FOR NEW PUBLIC HEARING) 4. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 31, 1994 MEETING) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSEN AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: (APPROVED) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR LESLIE PALMER, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE: (APPROVED) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PARTNERSHIP AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 0 0 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-8 TO L-0 BY ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AANEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY WILFORD AND BARBARA FAWCETT AND RONALD HENRY: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1994 MEETING) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY GLENN AND MILLIE NYBORG: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS �/rovcLL MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELI) DECEMBER 14, 1993: 61 ��pp ,// 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST �IA& � BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: TABLED AT DECEMBER 14, 1993 MEETING: .."o 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR KING STREET yfv STATION SUBDIVISON BY D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: -74,tlx-e,y- 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: /cecT,Oec'c- /o-g-� 7�d 4. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: ��proved 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SCOTTSDALE I ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSEN AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: �P,gGL 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR LESLIE / PALMER, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE: 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWAR ENGINEERS: e-cpa-,e 77' tea'' a/ (/ 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A_NNE(/XATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PA HIP HIP AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: /Ot��a✓�ti{jYid J ��CC�t ¢G'DnC�scS/�`s��a� v v 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A vvvv PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB EjTGjNEEPFs:: p_ �; q f 0"e {yid/ e7=7 cc�f ?n cv &/ 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ER QUEST FORA REZONE FROM R-8 TO L-0 BY ROBERT AND FR-ApN//WHITMIRE: /� 9q/J 11 0 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AANEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY WILFORD AND BARBARA FAWCETT AND RONALD HENRY: 13. PUBLIC HEARING: AND MILLIE GLENN ENYBORG;Co�xG�u£b�-u 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A V CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:Q-Lv ��T� U u h LM l�yZj�7zZ)� 4� 42 NAME: PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET PHONE NUMBER: Ca cl Ta:L 3 5 us 4/'', -- L -6--L X15 SLS__, -t r�; //, CD & fie / c �!---------------------- �� _3� 1�--------- S,Kg —G 7/2 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ---- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- `-------------------- ----------- O O %---co- `'------------- 'DV� CL k" &_�� h"C__ (oI__? ---------- ------------- - ----- - s F2,2? - 920 g ocl�cj_s� U -----------------------------v U 0--_.� � a ---------- cvt�VU 9 - tLZ 3, � MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 11 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Gary Smith, Elizabeth Gwin, Barry Gwin, Kathleen Weber, Virginia Allen, Roger Allen, CR Powell & Linda S, John & Susan James, Michael & Cheryl O'Hara, LaRae Saxton, J. Denk & Paula Leavitt, J & Marlene Clouss, Greg Murdock, Jack Siemad, Don Bryan, Ralph & Fran Van Paepeghan, Wayne & Faith Cookrell, Terry & Cathy Leuthermon, Pat & Frances Horwel, Terry McCarthy, JoAnn & Bill Stuh, Carol Foster, Jean Moore, Bob Moore, Dan Alderson, Debbie Alderson, Bev Donahue, Dan & Debby Woodall, Marty Goldsmith, Ken Henderson, Terry Nyborg, Rich Polski, Bill Clara, Dan Emigh, Eugene Beck, Wade Miller, Nancy Miller, Richard Baer, Thomas Mercy, Deborah Woodall, Chuck & Mary Cahoon, Larry Sale: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 14, 1993: Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any additions, deletions or corrections? Rountree: I have some changes, I'll mention it and give these pages to will so he can record them. Do you want the pages? Johnson: Pages Rountree: Okay, page 4, in my statement there it should be "..and maybe Limited Office Use." Page 8, near the top of the page, there is a "form" that should be a "from". Page 12, middle of the page, the statement, 11 ... that is a different plan that," it should be a than. Near the bottom of the page, it should be "did you have" as opposed to "do you have". I have an extra page 40 and 41. Page 43, middle of the page, end of the sentence, it should be,"... at this point in time is of no value." Page 51, middle of the page, strike the words corner preserved. And on page 52, top of the page,the word "wide" should be "wise". Johnson: Thanks Charlie for proof reading that. It just points to the need to enunciate and use these mikes as much as we can. Anybody else have any corrections, deletions, or additions? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we approve the minutes of our previous meeting. Shearer: I second it. • 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 2 Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes with the corrections so stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: TABLED AT DECEMBER 14, 1993 MEETING: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the Findings of Fact as prepared by our City Attorney. Rountree: Since the meeting between the developer and Wayne it appears that they have agreed to the suggestion that we made to down scale zoning. I think that would require a change in the Findings of Fact and I put that forth for consideration. I believe we will have to change the Findings of Fact because it speaks of Commercial General. Crookston: That is correct, the concern that I have is having the rezone either totally as CG or totally as CN and still have a residence in there. Under our Ordinances that is not allowed. Something either needs to be done either the applicant needs to request that the residence be zoned some type of residence, residential. The R-40 doesn't align with the density of the single family dwelling. That just needs to be worked how that is going to be done. The other concern about even if we could zone the whole thing as CG or CN is that in the event that it is zoned that way then the applicant occupies the house for a period of time and then says well I'm going to move my business, then you still have the property zoned as CG or CN and than a totally more intensive use goes in that we wouldn't have any input into. I think that is a concern. Johnson: What is your suggestion on how we work that out? Crookston: I think that needs to be addressed with the applicant, and see whether or not, from his testimony he said he was going live in the house. So, we need to sit down with the applicant and see what a proper residential district to rezone the property to would be. Rountree: Did you discuss that with him Wayne? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we are aware of this dilemma. Mr. and Mrs. Sciscoe are here, and one of the things I think we can do in the Ordinance is look at a Conditional Use Permit for maybe a portion of the use of that property within thee U Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 3 Commercial Neighborhood zone. It might be one way to alleviate that and put some time constraints. So if the property changes hands we are not locked into a higher intensity use occupying that home again. And the Sciscoe's have agreed to look at a Conditional Use Permit type of arrangement. Johnson: What is your thinking on that Tim? Hepper: Yes Crookston: You are saying Conditional Use for the house Forrey: For the home Crookston: For the home and with a CN designation for the entire parcel? Forrey: Correct, including the Dorado portion as well not just the Sciscoe but the Dorado property. Crookston: I think we need to have an amendment to the application. or at least an indication that they are applying for that or amending their application to that effect. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, would a development agreement be appropriate? Johnson: That would work. Forrey: Ok, something of that nature. Rountree: Would it require another hearing? Crookston: No. Johnson: Thanks Wayne. Rountree: Would that be stipulated in Findings of Facts or table it until we get the amendment? Hepper: I think we need to know if the owners are willing to do that. Crookston: They need to sign something to indicate that is what they want to do. If I receive that I can proceed with the Findings. So we can have them next meeting. Johnson: Okay, well then let's get together and do that. Anything else on that item? 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 4 Shearer: We need a motion to table those Findings. Johnson: We need a motion to table it because its on the agenda. Shearer: Can Wayne prepare findings without a motion? Johnson: Well, he already has that motion to prepare Findings of Fact at the last meeting. Shearer: Are you sure? It seems like we sent that back to review. Johnson: No, that is why its on there for Findings of Fact. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to table this until the next regular meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION BY D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: Johnson: Is there discussion concerning these Findings of Facts? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, the Findings state that these units need to have 2 car garages per unit, if the developer decides to go that way it appears that it may be a major re -draw or re -design of that and I'm wondering if we need to see that or find out if it is feasible for him to do that, if it is what kind of, how its going to effect the overall project. Johnson: At present the Ordinance requires, as I understand it, the 2 car garage because these are plotted as single family dwelling units, are they not? So they require a variance for that Ordinance. Hepper: I'm just wondering what that requirement Johnson: And you want to know whether or not that is feasible. Hepper: I'm wondering if the developer, if that is something he can work with or if he is going to have to re -design this whole project and maybe we need to start over on this thing if he is going to have to re -design the whole thing or should we just go 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 5 ahead and do our Findings of Fact. Johnson: Well it is whatever your pleasure is, but the Findings address that along with the ACRD recommendations and everything else. Hepper: I think we could probably address the Findings and stuff with the stipulation that if there is a major re -design that we need to look at it again just so we know what we are approving. Shearer: You've got the right idea, say it. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Shearer: I second it. Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as written, roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yes, Rountree - Yes, Shearer - Yes, Alidjani - Yes: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & 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 and with the stipulation that if a re -draw or a major re -draw, and that would probably be up to staff whether that is a major re- draw or major re -design, but if a major re -design is necessary that it be re -submitted to Planning & Zoning for us to take a look at it. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council with the conditions so stated that if a re- draw is necessary as determined by staff that we will require that, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 6 ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: Any comments? Rountree: Since we are just getting information on the traffic analysis and so forth in this project at 3:30 this afternoon, I think there is some question while this discussion is going (inaudible) the City Planner and ACHD and the Developer. Johnson: You might ask those questions of the people present. I know Larry Sale is here. Rountree: Specifically, have you seen the comments from the developer and factored those into the comments that we just received form ACHD about the status of the access onto Locust Grove and the collector status of the streets within this particular project? Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record my name is Larry Sale with Ada County Highway District. Commissioner Rountree, no I've seen no comments either from your staff or the developer. Which I guess is fair, they didn't see any comments from me. Rountree: They have indicated that they have a recent study and I've not seen the study, traffic study, that would indicate this study would enhance the developments, talking about both Sagehen and Uplands. Indicating that there wouldn't need to be collector status in this particular development based on the traffic study and urging the city to support that position. Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, in this subdivision that is true, Upland Meadows. There is no need for a collector status roadway. In our comments we have addressed the number of roadways that connect Locust Grove Road we strongly encourage a slight re -design of the project to eliminate on the permanent basis the middle connection to Locust Grove Road and turn that street back into the subdivision, that is Parmagon Avenue and let that be turned back into the subdivision across the drain ditch to Upland Drive and then the second connection be ultimately laid to Locust Grove Road for future phases. If the City wishes to have secondary access during the build up of the subdivision, we can understand that, we would recognize your interest in perhaps a temporary connection for the center access near Parmagon and then perhaps eliminate that in the future to reduce the street intersections along Locust Grove which you have identified in your Comprehensive 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 7 Plan as an arterial. And one comment that I would like to make that I didn't include in my written memo, I'd like to add comment number 4 which would read,"Extend Tarmagon Drive to the north property line as a stub street into the property of the north." i apologize for overlooking that in my written comments. That was reviewed with the developer and he has found that agreeable. Johnson: In view of that, gentlemen, what is your pleasure, what do you want to do? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. Will, you don't have a copy of the notice to the residents in the immediate area, do you? I have had 2 different people mention that they weren't properly notified that the direction, the description on the property wasn't right on there and I just wonder if you have that in your packet there. Johnson: This is a copy of the notice that went out. Hepper: I was told they mentioned the wrong side of the road. I was told that the description of the property mentioned that the property was on the east side of Locust Grove when in fact it is on the west side. I'm just wondering if that is correct or not. Shearer: What was indicated to me was that they got the wrong one. Hepper: I think Jim heard that too, possibly. Johnson: The notice says," ... east of S. Locust Grove and North of Victory." Hepper: When in fact it is west of Locust Grove road. It seems to me it was not properly noticed and some of the neighbors complained that weren't properly notified and that they wanted to testify and they couldn't. Johnson: Well, we have had some history on that sort of situation, they have gone back and started over from scratch. Hepper: Is that basically where we are at on this, if that is the case? Crookston: Jim, could you pass the notice down? Johnson: For what it is worth the application states east of South Locust Grove Road. When in fact it isn't, that is where Sagehen is right? Hepper: Correct i Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 8 0 Johnson: Well, my past experience with improper notification wasn't all that pleasant. Crookston: Well, we are better off to start over now then to start over after the Council has their hand in it and somebody raises it more vehemently. Johnson: Oh yea, because they are entitled to notification no question about it. Crookston: The question then really becomes were the proper people notified in conjunction with the proper description of the property. If there is an error the best procedure is to take the conservative approach and just start over. Rather than, it is even as much to the benefit of the applicant, rather than have somebody contest the hearing notice and you get into a legal morass over it and you would have a slow down now but you would be better off to get it handled now than wait 3 months or a year and a half. The other problem is going to go along with this however is that this parcel need to be annexed prior to the Sagehen property because the Sagehen property is not contiguous without annexation of this Upland Meadows. Johnson: It wouldn't be eligible. Crookston: That is correct Johnson: That is right. Well, you have the sage advice, what would you like to do with it? Do you want to ask the applicant something, go ahead. Goldsmith: I do no that the application was filled out incorrectly after just viewing the application, but I do know that the people on the west side were notified, I can verify that the mailing addresses are correct if that does shed any light on the subject I wanted to pass that on. Johnson: Well, I think what came to light was the people who claim that they didn't get notified. Shearer: Well, they said they were notified, but the notification was wrong and they thought it was across the road. Johnson: I see, so it would have influenced their thinking. Hepper: So they didn't testify at the public hearing because they thought it was on the other side of Locust Grove. Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 9 Shearer: They figured it was a 1/4 mile away from them, instead of in their backyard. Goldsmith: I was trying to be helpful there, I do know for sure the addresses were right. Johnson: I appreciate that. Hepper: Well, we've gone through this before. I think we should table it for now and start all over and let him re -notice everybody and re -notify and have a public hearing all over again. Johnson: Is that a motion? Hepper: Yes Johnson: State your motion Mr. Hepper Hepper: What do we do with what we have got, just abandon it and start all over? Or do we just re -notify and have another public hearing. Crookston: Table, re -notify and have another public hearing. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this application and re - notify everybody within 300 feet and have another public hearing. Shearer: And update the plan Hepper: And update the plan to show the street stub. Shearer: I second it. Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until proper notification is made with a proper description of the property, all in favor? opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #4: REVISED PRELIMINARY PAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until action on the previous item is taken care of. Shearer: Do we want to review the thing now so if there are any changes. Johnson: We've got a motion. Planning and Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 10 Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to table this item also until we can properly act on it in light of item #3, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item as well until we can resolve item #4 of the agenda this evening. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item as well, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSEN AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, for the record I have a conflict of interest. Johnson: For the record you have a conflict of interest. We won't ask you to vote. Is there any discussion concerning the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by the City Attorney? Shearer: Oh no, I don't want to do this one. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Hepper: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. Shearer: Could I have a little discussion on this? We've got these zero lot lines in this property in which we are going to have buildings abutting buildings and I know we talked about it a little bit before. I'm concerned that the lots will be sold separate or 0 0 Planning and Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 11 something and then we end up with a zero lot line between 2 lots and who knows what is going to be built unless it is all handled by one person. There seems like there should be some restrictions on that and I don't remember seeing any in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is one where we could have. Johnson: Item #9 on page 7 addresses zero lot line. Rountree: And I think the subdivision ordinance itself would take care of a number of those concerns. Johnson: I remember our discussion on this and I believe it was Commissioner Hepper who brought it up. Hepper: Could we put something in there that maybe they not share any common walls. or have a minimum distance between the buildings even though there is a zero lot line. Shearer: Well, I think this project really should have come up to us as a PUD planned unit development. I assume that possibly the owner of this subdivision is planning on having the construction done and selling after the construction, but what is to guarantee that is going to happen. Two people buy individual lots and live next door to each other, the lots are pretty small to be building without building against 1 lot line. I am pretty uncomfortable with it we could get ourselves into a Johnson: Is there any further discussion, we have a motion and a second. Rountree: I don't know if the developer is this evening, but maybe we could that question of them if they are. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, the applicant couldn't be here this evening. The developers of the subdivision are builders, they are the Christensen brothers and they are planning on building the subdivision themselves. The lots will not be marketed individually and I can see your concern. If they abandon a zero lot line concept would the lots be wide enough to accommodate a single family dwelling and meet the applicable set backs. They plan on building these structures by themselves. I think one way that you could add a condition that might make you feel a little bit more comfortable with this is possibly putting some type of a design review condition which I think you placed on another subdivision that you had some concerns about the type of structures. Johnson: Do you think that will alleviate your concerns Mr. Shearer? 0 0 Planning and Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 12 Shearer: Yes, and as long as one person is building the buildings and selling afterwards I'm not that concerned about it but I guess my concern is maybe if the developer got part way through and was in a money crunch and something and decided to sell these lots then we would have some Johnson: Well perhaps that is a suggestion, a design review condition, but we do have a motion we do need to vote on the motion or have it withdrawn. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to withdraw my motion, and make another motion. I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the stipulation added that the dwelling units be subject to design review by the City of Meridian. Shearer: I'll second that Johnson: Its moved and seconded that to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the stipulation that the dwelling units be subject to design review by the City of Meridian staff, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yes, Rountree - Yes, Shearer - Yes, Alidjani - Abstain MOTION CARRIED: All yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the City Council approve the requested annexation and rezoning that as a condition of rezoning the applicant meet the terms and conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law including the comments of the City Engineer, water and sewer requirements, the Fire safety codes and all other Ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met and complied with and all irrigation facilities must be maintained such that they continue to drain water as it was a part of the development and if there are irrigation (inaudible) or other means of conveying water located on the property that they be tiled. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation to the City of Meridian with stipulations so stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 13 ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR LESLIE PALMER, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE: Rountree: Mr Chairman, I make the motion that we turn on the air conditioning. Johnson: What are your feelings for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Leslie Palmer? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yes, Rountree - Yes, Shearer - Yes, Alidjani - Yes: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you'd like to pass onto the City? Rountree: Yes Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City as so stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We are now going to enter into a series of public hearings, seven in fact. I would appreciate if those willing to testify would adhere to the sign on my right, keep your comments concise and try not to be repetitive with those already stated, we'd like to get out of here today. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD: Johnson: Is there someone representing the applicant or the Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 14 like to come forward and address the Commission, please do so at this time, you need to be sworn. Gregory Johnson, 2483 Canada Road, Melba, was sworn by the Attorney. G. Johnson: This application is for 36 residential lots at a density of 2.71 units per acre. We plan on landscaping the berm areas along Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road as well as fencing those similar to the existing Sportsman Pointe Subdivision. We are proposing a minimum of 1500 square foot homes there. The average in the existing subdivision has been around 1800 square feet per home. Those homes are averaging $120,000 to $160,000 in price and we feel this subdivision will be comparable, we're slightly wider on our frontages on our lots complying with the new R-4 zoning. The lots across the Nine Mile Drain were 70 foot frontages and we are in excess of 80 foot frontages on these. In addressing the comments of staff, I have no problem with the recommendations that Gary Smith put forward and we will work out the details with him on those. The School District had a couple of comments, again stating they are over crowded in this area. We support their proposal of Rural State Transfer Fees as an alternative to trying to ease that and speed up the building program in the school district. Mr. Wayne Forrey the City Planner, Planning Director had some comments that I would like to address. The first one I'd like to address is his comment that we need to provide a provision for pedestrian access across Nine Mile Drain into the existing Sportsman Subdivision, we are already in the process of accommodating that, it was a good suggestion we are int he process of providing a walk way path. I will tell between which lots, between lots 2 and 3 which would provide access into a neighborhood park that is being built in Sportsman Pointe No. 5. Johnson: Wayne Forrey, would you point that out on the map, please? Forrey: 2 and 3? G. Johnson: 2 and 3, we would have a 10 foot path between those lots and then it would cross over into the neighborhood park is right there. This park will be completed sometime in 1994 summer season. We have another neighborhood park that is in phase 3 of Sportsman Pointe and that will completed approximately May of 1994. So these people will have access to the 2 neighborhood parks in Sportsman Pointe and that pathway will also provide access for school children if there is ever a school built in this section as was planned on. Another of Mr. Forrey's concerns (end of tape) asked for access from our subdivision into to that. We have had to re -design this subdivision already for ACHD. The road going out to Overland is now a culdesac because they didn't want traffic cutting 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 15 through on this corner. We have been able to manage to maintain our lots doing that. The corner that he was saying that it isn't a commercial corner would have to be developed residential, the current owner of that is not willing to sell otherwise we would have included it in our original design. He does have a home there and has access off of Locust Grove and that would allow a small culdesac to come in there and service that as 3 or 4 residential lots if that what he desired to do with it latter on. The rest of Wayne's comments we will seek to comply with and I'll answer any questions that you have. Johnson: Thank you Greg, any questions of Mr. Johnson? Alidjani: Mr. Johnson talked about 2 parks, how large are they and who will maintain them? G. Johnson: They are maintained by the Homeowners Association. They are approximately, they are between a half and an acre. One of them is 3/4 of an acre and the other one is a little over a half acre. They contain, both of them will have children playground equipment. one will have a volleyball court and a basketball court and the other one will have tennis courts. Johnson: Greg, did you have an opportunity to get the comments from Gary Smith our City Engineer? G. Johnson: Yes Johnson: Did you have a problem with any of those? G. Johnson: No Johnson: Do you have any questions of the developer? Thank you Greg, we may ask you to come back up if there is some questions. This is a public hearing, anyone from the public wish to address the commission at this time on this application. Yes sir, you need to be sworn, state your name and address and we need to record you on the mike here. Gene Thomas, 1692 Sportsman Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Thomas: Just worth noting here at the time of pre -purchase in the current existing Sportsman Pointe subdivision we were given verbal commits from builder and realtor that the status of that land was it was owned by a farmer and there was no intent for him to sell any time soon nor would it be developed. However it was interesting to note they did have full knowledge of the parks that were mentioned and so forth. Receiving notice certified in the 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 16 0 mail of the hearing and of the planned subdivision expansion obviously was a shock. And this was approximately 6 months ago that we purchased this. Johnson: You need to attend more of our meetings here. If there is farm land out that is not for sale, I'd like to see it. Thomas: Well, we certainly asked the question because obviously shopping in the area and looking at all the expansion taking place in Meridian and we bought specifically for that reason. Johnson: I'm sorry you were mislead by your realtor, I think the phases have been on the drawing board for quite awhile. Anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Mr. Shearer Shearer: I move we have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this project. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Its moved and second to have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared on the application, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PARTNERSHIP AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is there someone from the, representing the applicant that would like to address the commission please do so at this time. Brian Smith, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Court, was sworn by the Attorney. Smith: We are proposing Tuthill Estates No. 2. It is a 14.4 acre site with 49 total lots, 48 of which are buildable lots for a density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size is in conformance with the R-4 zoning around the area and in Tuthill Estates No. 1. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. The minimum building size for this subdivision will be 1,400 square feet. The utility services for this subdivision will come from the north from Parkwood Meadows, both sewer and water and there should be no problem serving all lots. Access to the subdivision will be for vehicular traffic to the North Ten Mile Road, one direction to 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 17 L the west through Tuthill Estates No. 1, the second direction will be through the north through Parkwood Meadows. There will also be a pedestrian access through the south which will connect Kentfield Manor. Nine Mile Creek flows along easterly boundary of this subdivision. We will maintain a 50 foot easement as specified by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Our covenants will also require that the backyards along that be fenced to hopefully prevent any problems in the future with that. We have reviewed the comments by the City Engineer and we agree to all of them. We have also reviewed the comments of Wayne Forrey the City Planner. The only comment I'd like to discuss, he mentioned a pedestrian bridge across Nine Mile Creek. Wayne and I sat down this morning and discussed it a little further. The pedestrian access to the south will allow like I said people to go into Kentfield Manor which they can then travel south 600 feet along a sidewalk and head west along Chateau Drive to access any schools. I believe that is it and at this time I will field any questions the commission has. Johnson: Ok, thank you Brian, any questions of Mr. Smith? Crookston: I have one, Wayne what is going on with Nine Mile in other subdivisions? Forrey: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Crookston, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian does not officially designate Nine Mile Drain or Nine Mile Creek as a pathway but the United States Bureau of Reclamation has designated it as a potential pathway and they have jurisdiction over that drain and so on their pathway development plans it is shown it is not on our Comprehensive Plan, but it is shown on the Ada County pathway plan. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a pathway, its just that there needs to be good coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation because at some point they may develop a pathway and they have mentioned that so they want to preserve that corridor for future pathway development. And that is why the comment for good coordination with the Bureau. Johnson: Are you suggesting some amendments to our Comprehensive Plan in that regard at our next division? Forrey: Well, in our Comprehensive Plan we talk about adopting the County pathway plan and that is part of it so in effect it is in our Comprehensive Plan but not directly spelled out. And this just happened about 2 months ago Counselor so on these other subdivisions that have been approved the City had no indication that it may be a future pathway from the Builder that is just a recent development and this is one of the first subdivisions that abuts the Nine Mile Drain. Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 18 Johnson: Thank you Wayne, anything else for Mr. Smith? Crookston: Do you know if your clients have any problem with preserving that idea of a pathway plan along Nine Mile? Smith: I believe they will be in favor of that, I think it preserves the integrity of that subdivision it adds some aesthetic value to the subdivision. I think with that 50 foot easement and the amount of distance from that easement to the top of the bank there should be no problem with that. Shearer: What can you tell us about the sidewalks on Ten Mile between Candlelight and along in the front of your main subdivision those are one going one way and one going the other way. I don't know if you have noticed but a lot of people have called it to my attention. Smith: We noticed it, I don't know what happened to Candlelight subdivision I know Parkwood Meadows and our subdivision and the subdivision to the south of us Kentfield Manor their sidewalks won't line up. I guess I can't offer any comment other than that. Johnson: Thank you Brian, we may have some other questions of you. Anyone from the public like to address the commission at this time on this application? Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing. We need Findings of Fact prepared gentlemen. Alidjani: I will make the motion that we have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is someone representing the applicant that would like to come forward please do so now. Hello Mr. Lee, you need to be sworn. Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 250 S Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Lee: This request before you this evening is an annexation and a 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 19 0 preliminary plat request for a parcel of land situated just south of existing Elk Run subdivision no. 1 on Highway 69. It comprises about 16 1/3 acres of irrigated pasture land right now with one existing residential home on one side. At this time the property is in the County and is zoned RT, the request before you is for an R-8 zone on about 7/10 of an acre and R-4 zone on the balance. The 7/10 of an acre that is being requested R-8 abuts existing R-8 zoning of the first phase of existing Elk Run subdivision just north of Calderwood as you can see on your preliminary plat. That particular phase of the subdivision was designed with that in mind in that culdesac. The overall development will consist of 42 single family residential lot with a gross density of about 2.6 lots per acre. The homes that will constructed within the development will be similar to the ones that are in phase one of Elk Run ranging in size of 1,370 to 2,200 square feet. There will be a common open space lot constructed adjacent and parallel to Highway 69 and allow for a landscape buffer between the roadway and the residential development. The site will be serviced by existing sanitary sewer and domestic water facilities are available in Elk Run subdivision no. 1 we will continue the system through the development for future developments to the south and the west. All the street within the development will be public streets conforming to ACHD requirements for local and collector. Calderwood Street which is along the north boundary of phase 2 and the south boundary of phase 1 is of collector status and it will line up with the existing collector street across Highway 69. In your packets there are some review comments from the Ada County Highway District. one item in particular that is the access we had shown in the original preliminary plat on Calderwood street. We have since concurred with ACHD's findings and performed a little bit of a redesign in that block to accommodate their wishes and that is to eliminate a direct access onto Calderwood. I sent out a reduced copy to the City Clerk last week and I think you probably have those in your packets now. The street design basically stated the same and we just shifted a few lots around and was able to accomplish the configuration quite easily. Also ACHD requested that one of the streets be extended to the south westerly boundary, we had 3 culdescas going to the south now we have 2 with the center street being a stub for future inter -neighborhood connections. All the lots will be totally landscaped and fenced as they are constructed. The developer of this project is also the home builder and they have developed a complete package. There will be a homeowners association established to maintain the landscape berm along Highway 69. We have reviewed the comments from the City Engineer and concur with what he stated in his review. There are a couple of items we'd like to get clarification on and one of those is the requirement for a common lot for the sewer line tat is going through the subdivision. We had originally shown it as an easement we prefer to leave it as an easement for maintenance Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 21 Lee: Everything to the north of Calderwood in this development would be R-8, in phase 2. Hepper: Everything north of Calderwood. Lee: In just phase 2, a portion of phase 1 is R-8 and R-4. Hepper: Everything north is R-8 Lee: There are 4 lots in there that are R-8 zoned. Hepper: Everything south of Calderwood is R-4, they would meet the City's requirement for 1,400 square feet minimum? Lee: Well the plan that they are building out there are ranging between 1,370 and 2,200 with an average of 1,600 feet. I don't know how many they have planned at the 1,370 level maybe the developer would have a better idea. Hepper: In order to meet the City Ordinance they would have to have a minimum of 1,400 square feet in an R-4 designation. Just so he is aware of that. Johnson: Thank you Gary Crookston: I have a question Gary, what is the status of the I think it is the Kennedy Lateral? Lee: Well the way I understand it the developer plans to finish that project with phase 2 under his phase 2 budget. Crookston: Phase 2 of this project or this project? Lee: well, Elk Run no. 2 Johnson: Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Lee before I dismiss him? Thanks Gary, this is a public hearing anyone else from the public like to address the commission please do so now. Gary Smith, I'd like you to comment on that #5 on your recommendations please, maybe we can get a clarification there. Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, this is a 12 inch diameter sewer line and it is serving quite a bit of area to the south. My concern is that we maintain continued access to the sewer lines that are outside of public right of ways. To this I have been requesting the developers to provide a common area lot that is designated for sewer line use only. Typically we have requested that they provide an all weather surface that will allow access across it. In this particular instance where we have Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 22 a manhole in the culdesac and another manhole on Highway 69 that is not an absolute requirement. It could be landscaped but my concern again is that it is preserved for our access to that sewer line. If we don't do something to preserve that access than as lots are sold and builders are building there is a strong possibility that the easement will be built over. We lose control with what happens in an easement and I can take you to several places in town, we can start at Meridian Ford where a sewer line runs underneath their garage. We can go down Meridian Street to the church down here across from Councilman Yerrington's place where the sewer line runs underneath the main building. Go over on west 7th there is a shop building that a guy built in the back of his yard over the top of a 24 inch diameter intercept, it happens all the time. And that is what I am trying to do preserve our access to the sewer line. Johnson: How large will this common lot have to be? Smith: We have been requesting a 20 foot Johnson: The same size as an easement? Smith: Well, it would be yes, it would be a sanitary sewer easement in a common lot. I would be platted as a lot as a common area it would be taken care of by the homeowners association. Like I say in this particular case it wouldn't be an absolute necessity to have an all weather surface because we can't access a manhole on both ends of it because of the short distance. It could be a 12 inch diameter or the possibility of it plugging up in a standard 8 inch lateral. Johnson: Thank you Gary Rountree: What is the situation with the water lines? Smith: Well the situation is that our water master plan requires that we have a grid network of pipes installed in such that we have a 12 inch diameter line on section line roads and a minimum 8 inch diameter line crossing at mid sections lines. Where we get into arterial roads, minor arterial roads that we find on section lines all the time, then the problem becomes how do you continue these water mains. If you don't continue them through an adjacent subdivision street so it can jump out onto an arterial as an access it is going to be very difficult for the next guy tot he south of this development to come back in the water line, how far does he have to come to get it. They City's policy in the past has been that a developer extends sewer and water to his property and through his property so that the next developer can get a hold of it and extend it on to his development. We continue to have Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 23 problems with corner properties as to how much the developer installs where he doesn't really have a need for the line but yet the next developer does. And they have to be able to get a hold of it without going a great distance to do this. In this particular case with the access to this subdivision through Calderwood you have a pretty good distance to the south boundary I think that is something that we as a City need to address and define a policy that is a little clearer than what it is now. Because right now it is a little bit fuzzy a little bit arbitrary and I think it can be defined a lot better so in all aspects the development community knows what they need to do. I guess this just kind of pointed out a little emphasis on the problems that exist. Johnson: Where would you require this common lot in the past and what has been your experience with maintenance keeping the leaks down and that sort of thing. Smith: Well, so far our requirements on these common lots are still in the development stages and we don't really have any that have been under use since we have been requiring it and since these subdivisions have been developing. Johnson: This is a recent thing. Smith: And like I said we tried to stay away from it as much as possible and only if there was no other way to serve the subdivision that is the only time I will look at and consider it. In this particular case it is a matter again of running a sewer line down Highway 69 and also installing sewer line in the subdivision street. The sewer line on Highway 69 has no use to the developer at all. It is a problem when you have a double fronting lot situation. Johnson: Thank you Gary, Mr. Forrey would you comment please with respect to Mr. Lee's concern regarding, really a clarification as to whether the development agreement is an agreement or a requirement. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, when Gary re- stated his interpretation I re -read and I could see where you would draw that conclusion. My intent in writing that statement in the staff report was that prior to final plat approval by the City Council that a adequate school site be either secured or in the process of being obtained by the School District and that would be spelled out in a development agreement. The situation in this particular part of the community is becoming real acute with the School district. Several years ago the district never anticipated that there would be much more development than just around Meridian Greens, in fact I think the School District has mentioned several Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 24 times that they were surprised that the project was successful. They had in their mind why would people live south of the Interstate and so they never put in a elementary school into that formula. And now it is an active growth area it is important area a good neighborhood to live in but there are is no school. And so tonight on the agenda I think there are 3 or 4 projects in this area and there is more land coming in on Preliminary plats so the School District has specifically asked that the City hold off any final plat approval until they get a school site secured. Now they are looking at 2 areas and Mr. Marty Goldsmith is a key player in his Sagehen Estates, he has by letter agreed to donate a portion or provide a portion of a school site in section 20 about a mile east of this Elk Run. And that satisfy one area of the school district but they are still looking for a school site just directly south of Meridian Greens in about the center of section 19 and that would be the school that would serve Elk Run. So at this point the School District is saying let us catch our breath a little bit, they are in active negotiations and they are probably close to getting a school site but until they do they have asked that we take that into consideration. So my intent was proceed with the preliminary plat but no final plat approval until the school district gives us the green light when they have a site. That is probably not good news for the developer but that was our intent. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey Hepper: Is there any designations in that area for City Parks or neighborhood parks? Forrey: Yes, with that school site there would be a 5 acre neighborhood park and that is, we are doing that with the school district, looking at the amount of land they would require for a neighborhood park as well. Hepper: Some of these subdivisions are having parks within the subdivision, is there any type of status requirement on that, so may lots it works out nice to have a lot designated as a subdivision park or anything? Forrey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Hepper, it does. Some of the larger proposals lend themselves to a donation that may be of a meaningful space of a park. This Elk Run is quite small and it is also at the extreme western edge of the sewer boundary there is not much property west of Elk Run that will develop on the Meridian Road trunk so we are really focusing on a school site across the highway which is unfortunate for having to cross but the school and the park will most likely be south of Meridian Greens and that would the park that these children and citizens would use. It is 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 25 not a good situation but it time I think there will be a park in the other section west of Elk Run that will take another sewer trunk and that will be several years before that area develops. Sagehen Estates and Upland Meadows we're actively talking to Mr. Goldsmith about a neighborhood park. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, Mr. Lee, any concluding remarks? Does anyone else have anything else, I thought I closed it. I will formerly close the public hearing. What would you like to do? Rountree: I move that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared particularly emphasizing the situation with the sewer and water. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with special emphasis, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-8 TO L -O BY ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: (Meeting adjourned for a 10 minute break) Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing is there someone representing the applicant that would like to address the Commission please come forward. Sheryl Ott -Ward, 4258 White Ash Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Ott -Ward: The property that we are proposing the zone change on is located just west of Meridian Road on Cherry Lane an area of mixed residential and commercial use. Within a 2 block radius there are several small businesses Meridian Family Chiropractic and a number of others. We feel this property would be compatible with these other small businesses that have minimal traffic flow as this owner schedules their clients on an appointment basis. The circle driveway offers easy off access on Cherry Lane and feels that it would not impede the traffic flow there. In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian we feel that it would meet the long term goals of the City. We request your approval on this application. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions of Miss Ward? 0 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 26 Rountree: Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer and ACHD? Ott -Ward: Yes I have Rountree: Do you have any problems with the comments that have been received? Ott -Ward: No, not at all. Rountree: Do you plan on any remodels or what not with the existing dwelling? Ott -Ward: Not at current other than really asphalting the parking lot in front what would be a parking lot. Shearer: What kind of business is going to go in there, what kind, do they have a particular client for the office? Ott -Ward: Yes, it is a construction business, and this particular builder has been in the business in the area for about 18 years. They have won a number of parade awards and build everything from lower end to upper end homes. And their quality of construction is excellent. As I said they have won a number of parade awards and they are very concerned about the aesthetic value and the quality of construction in Meridian. I feel it would be a real positive addition to businesses in the City. Alidjani: Since you mention he is a construction type office is there going to be storage unit also out in that area of heavy equipment? Ott -Ward: No, it will be mainly an office for meeting clients to review construction plans. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, we may recall you. Anyone else from the public like to address the commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions prepared on this application. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions, all in favor? Opposed? 0 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 26 Rountree: Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer and ACHD? Ott -Ward: Yes I have Rountree: Do you have any problems with the comments that have been received? Ott -Ward: No, not at all. Rountree: Do you plan on any remodels or what not with the existing dwelling? Ott -Ward: Not at current other than really asphalting the parking lot in front what would be a parking lot. Shearer: What kind of business is going to go in there, what kind, do they have a particular client for the office? Ott -Ward: Yes, it is a construction business, and this particular builder has been in the business in the area for about 18 years. They have won a number of parade awards and build everything from lower end to upper end homes. And their quality of construction is excellent. As I said they have won a number of parade awards and they are very concerned about the aesthetic value and the quality of construction in Meridian. I feel it would be a real positive addition to businesses in the City. Alidjani: Since you mention he is a construction type office is there going to be storage unit also out in that area of heavy equipment? Ott -Ward: No, it will be mainly an office for meeting clients to review construction plans. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, we may recall you. Anyone else from the public like to address the commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions prepared on this application. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions, all in favor? Opposed? P Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 27 11 Rountree: We have a little discussion on that, Mr. Chairman Mr. Forrey would like to give us a comment on that. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission I thought I heard Sheryl Ott say commercial zone, I was under the impression it was limited office. Rountree: It is limited office. MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #12: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY WILFORD AND BARBARA FAWCETT AND RONALD HENRY: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, the representative or representatives of the applicant please come forward, you need to be sworn. Ronald L. Henry, 6301 Charleston Place, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Henry: This is an application for rezoning and preliminary plat approval of a subdivision 27 lot single family residential subdivision on 10 acres of property on the corner of State Highway 69 and Caldwell Street. This is actually south of Caldwell. Since the application was submitted, a kind of a change has been made. There is an opportunity to add some property to this subdivision and what I would like to do is to make a motion to table this and move it to next month. I have developed some conclusions and I have read all the comments from the City and the Highway district. I believe that the new plat that will be submitted will solve most of the problems in fact all of those problems. It is going to be a much better upgrade subdivision with the addition of the acreage. There is a couple of questions a couple of issues that I would really like to address maybe that there still is kind of unresolved, in the ACHD's report they talk about a continuation of existing irrigation and drainage systems across the parcel right now there is 3 separate I guess irrigation ditches that go across the property and terminate, 2 of them terminate in the new the street Calderwood, the other one goes underneath. I don't really understand this statement. I think they want the one across the front along Highway 69 is already there and probably could be continued. The others that go across the parcel I don't think can be, so that is a question. We included in this project a parcel that is on the east side of Ten Mile Creek, which we plan to dedicate for a mini park. And I know that there has been some discussion about that with Wayne Forrey and I believe in his letter LJ Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 28 he brings up the question of is it going to be a public park or what, right now we are prepared to donate the land to the City for the park. Really we need to work out what kind, how that is going to transpire and what we are going to do with it. I, as I said the rest of the comments that have been given to us by the City I think we can address and solve in the revised plat that we will submit next month. Shearer: Where is the additional ground that you are going to subdivide? Henry: It is to the south. Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Henry? This is a public hearing, maybe came to testify, although we may table this is there someone that would like to come up and address the Commission now? Thank you Mr. Henry. Crookston: If he has some more land it will require an additional public hearing. Johnson: I need a motion. Rountree: Since he needs an additional public hearing do we need to table this or take it off the record? Johnson: Well, you are going to have to re -notice because you are going to have different people. We have to see a revised application. Crookston: Well, at this juncture we need to table unless we get a request or a withdrawal of the application from the applicant. (End of Tape) Johnson: If you pick up additional acreage than there will other parties involved they we need an opportunity to testify. That will require a new application. Henry: I think there are only 2 other people that are within 300 feet of it. So shall I withdraw it or amend it or what? Johnson: It will be the same time period. Crookston: I think that to benefit Mr. Henry it would probably be better to table it. If you withdraw it you may have to pay additional fees, there are procedures to have what you previously paid credited to what you now have to pay to add new land. 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 29 Henry: In looking at the resulting plat, there is very little that changes actually. Except that we have added more land and the streets are extended and there are 38 parcels rather than 27. Shearer: As per the clients request I would move that we table this project until the next meeting. Crookston: Well it may not actually be our next meeting it depends on our publication schedule that we have to meet. Henry: Well I understand that next Friday is the cut off time and I'd be prepared to submit a new application by that time. Johnson: It is actually this Friday. Henry: I have already done some planning I'm already prepared for it, it would be pretty easy to do. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a second and a motion to table this item, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-4 TO L -O BY GLENN AND MILLIE NYBORG: Johnson: Someone representing the applicant like to come forward at this time. Terry Nyborg, 5160 View Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Nyborg: This is a request for rezone of the lot on the corner of Cherry Lane and Linder, northwest corner, from R-4 to limited office. It is proposed to put a real estate office in the existing home that is there, remodel that adequately to do that. We believe this would offer a good transition area from the other commercial businesses there on that corner to the residential that lies to the north and west. The real estate office wouldn't have night activity as the other businesses do and it would be a quieter use for the corner and provide a good neighbor for the residents that are there. There is access to the property, the access is on the very west edge of the property off of Cherry Lane. I believe that this use for the property would be in keeping with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan providing a buffer as well as a transitional area between more commercial type uses and the residences that are there. Any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 30 Johnson: Thank you very much. Rountree: This rezone just applies to the one parcel on the corner and not the parcel behind and addressed on Linder. Nyborg: That is correct, this address is on Cherry Lane, it has no frontage on Linder. It is an "L" shaped piece of property. I have a larger picture of it, that shows the placement of the home that is there to scale as well as the garage and there is a small pump house on the property. There is frontage on Linder, there is frontage right on the corner but not to the north. Rountree: No accesses proposed off Linder? Nyborg: No Hepper: What would this big common area close to the intersection, what would that be? Nyborg: I would presume that would be used for parking, that or the house sits back a substantial distance from the road as you can tell from that drawing. Depending on the amount of parking that they needed there is .778 acres there, about 3,400 square feet on the entire parcel. The building, the house is about 1,600 square feet. Hepper: Do you have any plans for paving? Nyborg: That, I would assume they would pave it based on an offer on the property to buy it and the actual remodel of the house and plans for the lot have not been that well defined. Crookston: our ordinances would require paving. Hepper: The driveway and the parking. Do you have any plans for landscaping, fences, berming any like that? Nyborg: I don't know the answer to that, I would assume they will be willing to comply with whatever was required. There is certainly adequate set back to do that. Alidjani: Is the interest of the properties immediately west of the house at the present time? Nyborg: The access to the property, yes it is adjacent to the west property line. Alidjani: And then there is a chain link fence and if I recall 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 31 right there is another fence. 9 Nyborg: The wooden fence actually encompasses the lot that is to the north and east of that. The chain link fence encompasses just the yard around the brick home, there is a woven wire fence that Ada County Highway District put up around the pasture when they widened the road there. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Nyborg, this is a public hearing anyone else like to come forward on this application for rezone? Yes, mam, you need to be sworn. Vicki Baer, 1655 N Linder Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Baer: I live at the house adjacent to this property and my only concern is our driveway and the driveway of that one is a circular driveway tat goes all the way around. We have already had to put blockades up for people driving through so they can get Linder to Cherry Lane through that property. Also, we share the well with that property, we have a common well. Those are my concerns with that becoming an office. I don't know whether it is going to stay real estate or whether is going to become something else. Alidjani: Do you live in that red brick house? Baer: Yes I do, and I have a little child that is 18 months old so I'm concerned about the traffic coming through. Johnson: Ok, thank you Vicki, any questions of Vicki. Is there anyone else from the public? Apparently not, go ahead Terry. Nyborg: It should be noted that Vicki's property the driveway will not go around because the back 6,000 square feet behind this "L" shaped lot that actually stretches the length of her property so this property does not and will not connect to their driveway. There was an irrigation well on that back 6,000 square feet the folks that are developing Kastle Falls plan to use that irrigation well and they have purchased that property so that will provide a break between those 2 driveways. Alidjani: Do you still have the common well as you stated? Nyborg: Yes, currently the homes are hooked to a common well and they are both on septic tanks. It is my assumption in talking with Mr. Forrey that probably at lease this home if you approve a commercial use it would have to be hooked to city water and sewer anyway. 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 32 Johnson: Thank you very much, Gary Smith your comment were missing from this, do you have any comments? Anyone else from the public before we close the public hearing? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do with item #13 gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman I've got a question I think for Mr. Wayne Forrey, would you address the entrance to the City concept to the Comp Plan about landscaping and stuff this is pretty much along the main entrance to the City we need some landscaping and what type of landscaping berms, fencing is that something that can be done later, do you have any thoughts on that? Forrey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Hepper one of the last comments in my memorandum to the Commission talked about a development agreement stipulating compliance with all site development standards and zoning administrator and building inspector checklists. At our last department head staff meeting and there was the Mayor and one Councilman present to solve some of these, well to standardize some of these landscape requirements and of course the Commission is re-evaluating that whole issue of landscape which would included entry ways. The building department and the zoning administrator will be developing a checklist and so if a project is determined to be in an entry way we have policies in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about special landscape or special visual identity. And if we determine that this is one of those key point in the community than we will have some standards specifying more than just a tree or a shrub. We don't want to go overboard with that of course and would appreciate the Commissions input,b ut yes if this property through that development agreement is determined an entry way into the community we would want a higher landscape standard than in other types of developments that are not an entryway, we are not there yet but we are moving in that direction and that is what I envision in that development agreement and those new checklists that we are developing. Hepper: But since we don't already have that, how would we proceed with this? Forrey: Well at this point we would have to rely on the existing ordinance and just make sure that everything in the ordinance is adhered to just monitor from a development review standpoint. The parking is adequate the signage the landscape that we do require now. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any other discussion? We need a motion. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have Findings of Fact and 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 33 Conclusions prepared. Shearer: Second 0 Johnson: Its moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCUST GROVE CENTER BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is there a representative of the application that would like to come forward at this time please do so. Kathleen Weber, 600 North Maple Grove Road, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Weber: Mr. Chairman, Commission members and Mr. Forrey, I would like to give some background information about AVest and share some specifics concerning the application before you tonight. Then, roger Allen would like to discuss some major issues to be considered prior to your recommendation to City Council. The approval process was begun on this 40 acre parcel a year and a half ago when Mr. Jack Niemann was the City Planner for Meridian. Since the City of Meridian was planning to revise their Comprehensive Plan rather than amend the old comprehensive plan, Jack suggested that we wait... So, we agreed to postpone presenting our project until the new plan was adopted. In June, 1993, a moratorium was placed on building in Meridian... So, we waited some more. In November of 1993, when the project could finally be presented, the Meridian Council found it had a few more Comprehensive Plan details to work out in regards to talks with County Commissioners. This process has been good for Meridian ... So, Avest has been patiently waiting. WE are very hopeful that now e finally proceed with our project. I am really anxious about the prospects of finally being able to go forward with this presentation. Then I received the agenda for this meeting and found we were last on the agenda. I decided that someone must think I really need lesson in patience. So I'm really trying and all these people are too. We are doing a good job. We want to be sure that what we have before you tonight is clearly understood. Avest has two applications for you to consider. One, is an application for annexation and zoning request for a CG zone for the 40 acre parcel at the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview Ave. The second application is a request for a conditional use permit for a rental storage complex. We are anxious to have approval for the storage use so we can begin 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 34 0 building as soon as weather permits. We would like to start this project in April of this year. This is why we are bringing both applications at the same time even though the Conditional use permit is contingent upon the annexation and zoning application. We have brought along some pictures of developments in which Avest or Avest Partners are majority or sole owners. We have been doing projects i the Valley for over 32 years. The most recent completed project is the Southshore Shopping Center in southeast Boise. It was designed to conform to the neighbors needs and expectations and serves as a true asset to the neighborhood. Southshore is a 200,000 square foot shopping center with a Kmart and Albertsons anchor and was joint ventured with some of the same people that will participate in this project. Namely the developer of southshore Mr. Larry Durkin, and the majority owner of Southshore Mr. Roger Allen. Mr. Durkin's father had a surgery today so Larry could not be here. On his behalf though I would like to furnish a copy for the record of the very impressive resume of Mr. Durkin's Company Dakota Developments, and its accomplishments over the past years, including 59 Shopko Stores, 2 Kmarts and 23 other Shopping center developments around the country. Also included for the record is a letter from the Mayor of Boise, Mayor Coles, concerning the spirit of cooperation with which the Southshore Shopping Center was developed and his opinion of its benefit to the City of Boise. May I read this short letter into the record? It is addressed to Mr. Larry Durkin, Dear Larry, I wanted to congratulate you on a job well done with the Southshore Development on Park Center Blvd. This is one of those projects where the neighborhood had developed around commercial zoning and at the time you stepped into this development of the project, there had been a lot of controversy surrounding the idea of a 200,000 square foot shopping center being constructed at that location. However, because of your ability to work with the neighborhood, provide solutions to their needs we have a very nice shopping center providing services to a growing neighborhood area of our community. I want to thank you for your integrity in developing this project and following through with everything you said you would do at the neighborhood meetings. Accordingly I would be happy to be a reference in any other part of the country you are developing. If I recognize your projects with national tenants throughout the country. Very truly yours, H. Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise. I have a copy of Durkin's resume and also a copy of this letter that I would like to submit to you City Clerk , Mr. Berg. I'm not sure that you know this, this first billboard here is of our Southshore Shopping Center, it gives you some pictures of the different shops along the top left-hand corner there, some of the berming and landscaping in front of the Albertson's, the center picture there is of the Kmart store. directly from the neighborhood that is adjacent to that property. You'll notice the local sign that was agreed upon the neighbors and Kmart and the City of Boise. Also the Key bank is one of the pads Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 35 that is out at the front of the shopping center there. And a real important picture, is in the bottom left-hand corner there, that is the back of the shopping center, it is quite well landscaped, the berming goes up 6 feet high on the building. So when you walk along that sidewalk along the back of the shopping center you look right into the greenery, you don't look into the building back and thins like that. The bottom right -had picture there is the entry way where we put in quite extensive landscaping, island areas and that happens throughout the shopping center complex too. The shopping center that will be eventually proposed for this site is approximately the same size as this one. So, it gives you a good idea of what we do. This is only an 18 acre parcel. Avest has been in the storage business for the past 20 years. We own, supervise construction, and operate all of our own facilities. Our storage companies are our mainstream investment tool. Stor-it's newest location at 7800 West State in Boise is noted for its beautiful lawn and landscaping at the entrance to Boise from Eagle and highway 55. And we brought some pictures of that area also. It is quite an extensive lawn area, my manager claims it takes him 5 hours to mow every week and eventually that will all be taken out we thought it would be nicer to look at the grass rather than the gravel so we went ahead and did all the landscaping. It is our philosophy that landscaping pays off you can never do enough landscaping. It brings in more good ideas and thoughts about an area than anything we have ever found it is worth every dollar spent. In the State Street location is similar to the proposed site at Locust Grove and Fairview in that we have a neighboring residential subdivision bordering the northern side (or back) of the property. We are certain that eh neighbors in Meridian will find as our neighbors on State Street have fond that, storage and Stor-it in particular makes a good neighbor. In fact we make perfect neighbors. We screen out the noise from the traffic (in this case Fairview Avenue noise), we provide privacy for their backyards. Stor-it doesn't have dogs, children, lights, or any visual, auditory or actual space. Our storage buildings provide a single sided, one story, landscaped buffer for maximum backyard pease and quiet. And that is the type of complex whether it not being any chain link fences around it where the neighbors are it would a one-sided complex so all they would see is the back of a building. In our neighborhood meetings with the neighbors who would e directly affected by this Stor-it development, we got very favorable response to this project and were even asked by several neighbors on to the west of applewood, if we couldn't extend the storage on in their direction. We also have some pictures of the neighborhoods directly adjoining our property on Locust and Fairview for your reference. And some of the neighbors may want to use them too. Avest held 2 neighborhood meetings we sent out 130 invitations and included response stamped envelopes. On Monday, December 27, the topics discussed mainly concerned the Mirage 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 36 Meadows neighbors - 21 attended. On tuesday, December 28, the topic was mainly the Locust Grove neighbors concerns regarding the need for sidewalks and bike lanes etc. in light of expansion of Locust Grove from a 2 lane to a 5 lane road by ACHD in 1997. Avest invited Mr. Larry Sale from ACHD to attend this meeting to make us aware of ACHD's plans for Locust Grove. 19 attended this meeting, approx. 10 were neighbors that didn't attend Monday night. I also spent an afternoon canvassing the Mirage neighbors on Oakcrest after the formal meetings for those that were not able to attend either of the neighborhood meetings. I wanted to get the input from these neighbors directly adjoining our property. As a result another 13 neighbors were shown maps and received lengthy explanations of what the neighborhood meetings were about and were given an opportunity to share ideas for buffering uses. Notes from the neighborhood meeting were put on file at City Hall on Thursday following the meetings and I informed neighbors that the notes were there for their reading. The meetings were informative to both neighbors and Avest. It was the first opportunity for any of the neighbors to really know what was being planned on the land adjoining their property. Due to a prior notice of development being sent out before Avest had developed a plan many of the neighbors had unfounded fears regarding the development. To their credit, they came with open minds and the discussions were both productive and congenial. Once Avest was able to explain the possible transitional uses of the land, most of the neighbors seemed favorable to the storage use as a buffer and provider of maximum privacy. The retirement center proposed for the northwest corner of the property appeared to also be an acceptable buffering use for the neighbors to the west of Applewood. As I mentioned earlier, several even asked if there was a possibility of the storage being extended along their property lines. Several directly impacted neighbors stated that they would not favor having a playground border their property once we discussed the noise pollution, animals, and other aspects that parks might bring to their backyards. What Avest heard and what will be most sensitive to, is that the neighbors want to retain their privacy from people, business, traffic, pollution, and noise. Both the storage complex and a retirement center, with strategically placed, three sided carports or storage areas along property lines would serve this purpose. These are the things that have been incorporated in our development proposal as a result of the neighborhood meetings and staff recommendations. 1. We would be favorable to closing Applewood and extending it only as a recreational pedestrian path to our shopping center loop road with emergency access wooden ballards to keep traffic out. As a result Avest has already incorporated this closure of Applewood feature into its project design. This will calm the traffic levels in Mirage meadows and is supported by staff reports for these needed amenities. Also we have had talks with Dove Subdivision 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 37 owner Mr. Dave Leader, about incorporating some use of the abandoned Dixie Lane form Mirage at Oakcrest to the front of the shopping center as a pedestrian as well. Mr. and Mrs. Stipp ad Karen Blayney who face directly on to Applewood and Mr. Burckett whose bedroom window faces onto Applewood will be especially benefitted by this abandonment of Applewood. 2. Avest has met with the architect for the Shoshoni Building owners and designed an acceptable shared access which meets the requirements of ACHD as well as storage and the Shoshoni owners. 3. All of the site specific requests from ACHD have been reviewed and are acceptable and we will be able to meet them. Many neighbors wrote to the City Council upon the initial notice of the project. All letters from neighbors have been responded to personally be Avest. The City received 15 letters prior to our neighborhood meetings. Avest responded to the 11 people that wrote and were not able to attend our neighborhood meetings. The response letters are in your City files. Also AVEst received only 2 letters from the 130 mailed to attend the neighborhood meetings. Following are the concerns from neighbors letters prior to the neighborhood meetings and our comments regarding them: Bike lanes were a concern: these will ben incorporated into the AVest development with sidewalks possibly within the berming along Locust Grove. Walking path from Applewood to shopping center loop road and a walking/bike path from Dixie at Mirage to the front of the shopping center. Carol street alignment was mentioned: ACHD will more or less decide this matter but Avest will work with both ACRD and the neighbors regarding this concern. Concern about CG zone: Most neighbors were more comfortable with this request after it was explained that each ad every part of the project will have to go through Conditional use hearings and design review where they will have opportunity for input. Avest must request this zoning to attract the tenants it wishes to have participate in this project and the City does not relinquish any control over the project since it is all under Conditional use permit. We are asking for this zone because having it makes it possible to design this property to its highest and best use. Zoning the entire property CG allows the necessary flexibility to comprehensively plan all parts of the land in a compatible mixed- use design. Neighbors will always have neighborhood meetings, staff, P&Z, and Council meetings in which to respond and be heard prior to any proposed development approval. Buffering noises, irrigation, traffic: There is a minimum 400 foot buffering area between Mirage Meadows residents for the rear of the proposed shopping center. This will insure buffering from commercial activities. In addition the planned storage and/or retirement center makes a good transition from residential to mixed-use and ten to commercial. 2. Also the requirements for approval regarding irrigation and 0 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 38 engineering requirements referred to in the letter form Mr. Gary Smith will be met. 3. Locust Grove Road has been designated to be widened to 4 to 5 lanes by 1997 which will increase traffic. We feel Avests participation such as berming, sidewalks, and landscaping will soften the effects of this road development for the neighboring homes facing Locust Grove. Public Facilities: Some neighbors letters proposed using a playground to buffer residential housing from Commercial development. While agreeing that neighborhood parks are desirable, the best place for it might not be near busy corner of Locust Grove and Fairview or a shopping center or along the proposed 5 lane Locust Grove Road. In addition, there are other alternative buffering concepts for this piece of property that appear favorable tot he neighbors who are directly adjacent to this property. It has been stated in the Idaho Business Review that the Church being built on hickory a few blocks east of our project, will have some wonderful community facilities like amphitheaters, softball diamonds, swimming, tennis, all open to the public. WE all need to support the Church in their efforts. In addition, I believe the Comprehensive Plan does specify a community park on the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick. Avest wants to be an active member in this community and neighborhood. We want to be a good neighbor not to just those families that directly touch our property, but to those people who are less directly affected. We have made an effort to hear from everyone who wished to express an opinion of the proposed project. Even though some have come form several blocks away. We want the entire area to develop in a pleasing upscale manner and we feel that our project on the fringe of this newly developing Meridian neighborhood will both serve as a gathering place and a convenience to this neighborhood. Because we now consider this our neighborhood, avest agrees to pay impact fees and or make a monetary donation to this city for purchase of another site away from the commercial aspect of our property that is more suitable for a park for our neighbors to use and enjoy. It is our understanding that the City is working on implementing this concept and we want it to be known that we firmly support having all of the developers pay their fair share in order to preserve and create community public amenities. Thank you for this opportunity gentlemen to present this portion of the project. I would like to now turn over the discussion to Mr. Roger Allen, and I have a copy of what I just read for Mr. Berg. Johnson: Any questions of Kathleen Weber? Rountree: You talked about a loop road, would you point that out? Weber: Yes, this is not a complete drawing, so I will. The loop road which ACHD has asked us to incorporate into our project would 0 • Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 39 begin here at the shared access with the Shoshoni Building and the Stor-it access to the complex here. You would enter here, would make a turn here going around the front of our complex, approximately along here, and their specifications that we discussed with Mr. Sale from ACHD concerning the radiuses of these turn angles and would proceed along the back of the complex right here that is where the loop road would go. Johnson: While you are there, where is the proposed retirement center again? Weber: This big area in question right here we wanted to wait until we had a chance to discuss with the neighbors but it had been as far back as a 1 1/2 years ago in our mind that it was a very unique location for a retirement center based on the senior citizens who are not able to walk or drive. They would have walking access to a shopping center and Mr. Bill Stipp who is helping us to kind of design this project when he saw that piece of property right there he said this is a retirement center. This would be a great use for this, and we see many examples of that in Boise. And I believe with Locust Grove being expanded this could possibly become a buffering for them to have easy access to other areas. Johnson: Thank you Rountree: When you showed the pictures on Southshore, you indicated behind the buildings berming and what not, would that be located along your loop road, how would that fit with your site plan, is that going to be discussed? Johnson: You need to be sworn. Roger Allen, 6904 Randolph Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Allen: It has been interesting sitting here this evening hearing subdivision after subdivision after subdivision being approved and really very few comments concerning the subdivisions and we come forward with one grocery store to feed all of these people and look at the turn -out that we have. I want to thank the neighbors who have turned out here this evening, I see a lot of familiar faces who attended the neighborhood meetings. I'm sorry that others could not make it because I think that we all benefited from those meetings. I realize the hour is late and I will make my comments as brief as possible. I believe that each of you have in your packet I hope a summary of our presentation, does everyone have one of those if not i have some copies. Because of the interest and the number of people here this evening, I would like to just quickly go through each of the 2 sections that are covered in this 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 40 0 presentation packet. The first one concerns zoning and annexation and the second one the Conditional Use permit application. I think it addresses some of the major issues that were discussed and thought through when the Comprehensive Plan was put together over the last year and a half or so. And we have identified 5 major issues and kathleen if you would put that up, these 5 major issues we feel is what is the highest and best use of the 40 acres is a shopping center supportable at this site. How should the balances of the property be developed? Why annex and zone the property now and then the neighbors concerns. Let me just quickly run through these and I will somewhat summarize them, I realize it is getting late. The highest and best use of the 40 acre parcel, the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for multiple use including a community shopping center. And I know that Wayne gathered a lot of information from neighbors and during that period and had open hearings and people attended. Throughout the community it was felt that a major community sized shopping center and I might add that the definition used generally for community sized shopping center is somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000 square feet and we do have almost exactly 200,000 square feet in the Southshore center. The infrastructure is in place for a multiple use and shopping center meaning the sewers the water and the roads and the street lights and so forth either are in place or will be in place. The parcel is large enough to be developed with a blending of multiple uses. The 40 acres is located at a major intersection of a major arterial and a minor arterial being Fairview and Locust Grove. The 40 acres is close to the City of Meridian not out on the fringe of Meridian and the City will maintain control over development of the property through required design review and conditional use permit approval and I don't mean to keep going over that but I know there is mis-understanding from neighbors even though we went over it in the neighborhood meetings. What we are asking for is the property be annexed into the City and as I understand the process once its annexed it must be given a zone. We are asking for a zone that allows us a great deal of flexibility. And the natural thought is you zone it CG and the first thing you know you will be building a bar or a tavern out there. We all know that it is the furthest thing from our mind but there is always that threat, but as I understand the Comprehensive Plan and Wayne you might want to clarify, but this area has been designated a multiple use area and all developments within that area have to come back through the neighborhood meeting process,the City Staff direction, the P&Z hearing, and City Council for approval. So we would be coming back through, we are not asking for a shopping center tonight, we are not asking for a retirement center we are asking for a Conditional use permit for the rental storage portion of the development. WE feel that evidence supports a multiple use for this property. The major issue #2 is a major shopping center supportable at this site. 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 41 0 We already mentioned the Comprehensive Plan anticipates a community sized shopping center and specifically identifies this area under land sue policy #5.19U on this acre the ingredients for a shopping center site. Major tenants have expressed a very strong preliminary interest int he site. WE are working and only in a preliminary way with 2 different major (end of tape). We have done what is called a slash report and most of you know that is a market study and basically that study is done for a specific site to identify whether or not a major tenant feels that they can locate a store there and it will be successful and it is a real simple process and I have an overhead on it. Basically they say how many people are int eh area, how much money do they have, how much of that money will they spend on my particular product how much will my competition take from that, how much is left to be spent on my particular product. From that they make a very easy process very complex and it requires a great deal of study. Those are called slash reports, we have done the slash report unfortunately it is done for a specific tenant and that tenant is not willing to share that tonight, as soon as it is available and when we came through with the Conditional Use permit for the shopping center that of course will be made available to the City. The results of that report were favorable. WE have also done a market study on this site, and the market survey involves calling 700 people within the Meridian area and asking them if this kind of a facility were built there would you trade there. And that has been completed and that has been very favorable. Fairview Avenue we do not feel it is favorable for residential development. We feel that there are meany benefits of a major shopping center at this location and Kathleen just real quickly you can see there that the Comprehensive plan encourages commercial and industrial development speaks to it in several different places throughout the plan. This would work towards the goal of making Meridian independent of other cities. Jobs would be created both at the center and for suppliers and sub- contractors. It would add to Meridian's tax base both in real property taxes and just to give you some idea the shopping center at Southshore is in the 12 to 16 million dollar range that is the kind of real property value that we are talking about as a tax base for the City. City impact fees, whatever those might be those will be paid. And of course ACHD fee which is already in place. We've mentioned the infrastructure is already i place for the shopping center. Shopping centers are fairly low demand on services, the kind of services that Meridian is just being bombarded with or has a tremendous need for in terms of schools and libraries and parks and those kinds of things. The shopping center does not impact those kinds of services. The property meets all Comprehensive plan physical requirements. We would provide physical improvements such as additional widening of Locust Grove, we've already mentioned that ACHD has that in their schedule for 1997 to be widened to a 5 lane road. And I can 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 42 E J confirm now, is Larry still here, I assume in the road section that Larry put in the report that you have from ACHD the Locust Grove road section would 70 to back at curb to back at curb and I assume that is a 5 line road. So anyway we are looking at between a 4 and 5 lane road to handle the traffic projected by ACHD in the near future. A minimum 20 foot landscape berm along Locust Grove and I might also add along Fairview and you might on this shopping center I guess we don't pick up a good one there but generally at the entrance ways we come in the parking lot area in other words there is a berming along the front of the shopping center and it extends back in to the shopping center to take the traffic on in and those can all be landscaped. We see a minimum of twenty feet all the way around the shopping center portion and nicely landscaped sprinkled and sodded. There will be sidewalks along Locust Grove and as I understand now from ACHD reports they are going to require sidewalks along Fairview Avenue, for awhile that was questionable whether it was a State highway at one time. There will be sidewalks there, our preference is to bury this sidewalk in the berming which when discussed with the neighbors was desirable from their standpoint rather than putting a curb and then the gutter and then the sidewalk, it is much safer if you can get the children and people walking back away from the traffic along the streets. And of course modern landscaping and buffering provide centralized shopping rather than strip commercial in your Comprehensive Plan speaks specifically to strip commercial which so often happens up and down a major road like Fairview. It will provide a pleasant place for Meridian Residents to shop within their own community rather than going to the other communities of Nampa and Boise and so forth, and it could be a gathering place. Often times shopping center are places where people meet for lunch and do a little shopping and can be a meeting place for them. We feel that a major shopping center is supportable at this site. The major issue #3, how should the balance of the property be developed. I'm just going to skip over that, those are our thoughts and comments it is not conducive to residential, allow transitional uses that are well landscaped and we feel that we have presented some ideas to the neighbors both along Locust Grove and in Mirage Meadows which are our direct neighbors and the ones we really feel the most allegiance to or that we are going to impact the most and we want to deal with them as best we can. Why annex and zone the property now, issue #4. I do want to emphasize a couple of points here. If you are going to annex and zone the entire property and that is a proper thought, why don't you when you come in with the shopping center, request that zoning and when you want a retirement center, come in and request that zoning and so forth. What that does it causes piece meal development, it is much more difficult to attract users and major tenants, the trade offs are less likely when approached on an individual basis, it greatly lengthens the approval process, it delays the tax revenue from the property for 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 43 E the City of Meridian. And the reason to annex and zone it now the City will always control the development of this property through the Conditional use and design review approval process, I don't mean to keep repeating that but it certainly fits there, aids in the overall coordination of planning for the site and the basic rules would be in place. It makes it much easier and almost a necessity in negotiating with potential major shopping center tenants. I just want to expand on that, just to say it is very difficult to go out to major tenants like your Target Stores and your Albertson's and your Shopko's and Kmarts and say to them I have this piece of property, its in the County and its zoned RT and I'm going to build a shopping center on there would you like to take a look at that site? And their response is generally Yeah, sure come back when you are a little more certain. We feel that zoning the entire property at this time does not remove any control of the City, it allows us to do a great many things and have the flexibility to work with those tenants. It makes it possible to negotiate with a joint venture management for a potential retirement home which I'll get to in just a moment, and the City would gain immediate tax revenues from the annexation. The major issue #5, the neighbors concerns. A lot of their fears and concerns are of unknowns and they need to be addressed. Development of this parcel must proceed with care and the spirit of cooperation with the neighbors and I think I will leave the rest of that for you to read down through. I would like to put that overhead up that has the loop road and the overall layout, this one was prepared after a meeting with ACHD and the Dove Meadows developer Dave Leader and Dan Wood who is doing Wingate Subdivision up towards the north. Just below Wingate Subdivision is Dove Meadows this is a plan that we submitted to ACHD for their perusal and study and you can see that there is an interlinking with Mirage Meadows but the roadway has been designed such that it does make it rather difficult. In other words if a residential street, they are connected neighbors in Mirage Meadows can pick up the children in Dove Meadows for whatever and yet you don't encourage through traffic to come down too many corners, this seem to be an acceptable compromise with the Dove Meadows and Wingate development. It allowed up to address the desires of both of those developers and many of the people in Mirage Meadows subdivision that said whatever you do please don't bring commercial traffic in through our subdivision we don't need more traffic in that area. And so that is one of the things that we have done. The other thing is the Applewood which a little stub right there, at Larry Sale's suggestion of ACHD that it be made a 20 foot paved walking bike path connecting to the loop road within the shopping center and could be used of course for walking purposes, probably some wooden ballards up there so the emergency vehicles could knock them down in case of emergency, but otherwise restrict vehicles through there. We hope that is an acceptable solution for the people in 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 44 Mirage Meadows. We haven't had a chance to meet with them since that time and of course this has not been approved or signed off by ACHD but I did take it from the report that Larry submitted to you. Kathleen if you would circle the transitional area there I'm sorry that it showed up and it says transitional use, that area from the very beginning when we began working on alternative layouts and possible layouts for the sites we were working with Billy Ray Stripp and laid out the shopping center portion of it and we said we want some storage in this area and he immediately went to that area and circled and said this would be ideal for a retirement type of center and that is the last item I want to address. The rental storage portion would be backing up to the Mirage Meadows subdivision and also Dove Meadows subdivision when that is platted as I understand that is not being platted, the second portion of it. The only other thing I want to point out on the plat would be the commercial portion of it, I think there is some mis- understanding. This is would be commercial the retail commercial shopping center that is between 18 to 20 acres in that portion and the loop road that was referred to earlier, it is curved into there and that was a suggestion of ACHD, Larry again suggesting that we make those gradual turns for the emergency vehicles and so forth on a 100 foot radius curve there. So that is then what we are proposing, the shopping center area, a Conditional use permit for the rental storage portion and the transitional use indicated up there for a retirement center. I know it is late and 2 quick things here. This is what we would like to pursue on that portion of the property in the northwest corner of the 40 acres we wold like to build a retirement center on this parcel, the very unique location of this parcel is ideal for a retirement center. It is near residential which is important for a retirement center. People in those center don't like to be placed in the middle of a commercial development in the middle of a industrial zone. So they could be near a residential zone. More importantly it would be near an activity center the shopping center if it is approved and there are numerous examples throughout the valley. There are 2 near the Hillcrest shopping center, there is one near the Collister shopping center over in the Boise area. Because the shopping center provides an activity area, a gathering place, someplace for them to go each day where there are people and activities going on. This would be a valuable asset and make a significant contribution to the City. It can provide the same buffering and screening as was mentioned in the staff report. For the neighbors across Locust Grove, by berming along Locust Grove and I can see that being the typical 6 or 8 feet high landscaped over the top and so forth and carried on there I think would be desirable for those people on that end of Locust Grove. For the neighbors in the Mirage Meadows by using the same single sided low profile privacy wall used for the rental storage and parking garages and for the retirement center, we feel a portion of our property has unique 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 45 9 characteristics that are not available for most other parcels of land as ideally suited for a retirement center and we would like the opportunity to explore this. When we talk of a single sided building what we are referring to is not the typical double sided buildings that you see in a typical rental storage, but a single sided building looks something like this a long straight wall and all of the doors and accesses are from the other side. Our typical landscaping pattern is for every 40 feet we like to see either a cluster of either 3 to 5 and alternating trees and shrubs to break up that vertical look. This is what we are proposing that would adjoin the neighbors to the north in Mirage Meadows of course we would have our city setback area 15 feet I'm not sure. This would then both provide a privacy wall for them, and I want the commission to know and the City Director that we typically put this in and maintain it and so forth. One day we were thinking about that and it is a maintenance headache for us and we thought what if we went to the neighbors in Mirage Meadows and said if we put this in and put in the grass and so forth and allowed you to come back in to this area and add it to your backyard you can use it if you will maintain it. We would enter into some kind of a maintenance agreement and I want that on record and we are willing to pursue that. We talked about some of the details and we are not going to get into that this evening. We are making that offer that seems to me would be a real benefit to the people in Mirage Meadows and especially the way those lots are designed most of the lots don't have a large backyard, 20 to 25 feet and I know 2 of them there on Applewood only have 5 or 10 feet from their property line, but we would another 10 feet and you would have the privacy, no litter, no lights so forth, that is our idea. We would like to keep the front open for security purposes, anyone within the complex could get real nervous when the front is open like that and you can look down through it. This last point I will quickly cover, we use a brick type pillar usually about 7 1/2 feet high with a black vinyl fencing between those pillars which makes it very attractive no barbed wire, by using the single sided building we have no fences around the perimeter of the property so we can landscape from our building out to the setback area whatever that might be. I guess I need to take this one second, because I have seen a picture floating around of one of our facilities at Maple Grove, which shows the typical old storage construction. We have a chain link fence, we have razor wire along the top. That facility was built in 1976 it is in an industrial zone, not a residential or a commercial zone. We have is scheduled for complete renovation the reason we have held up on that is die to Mr. Larry Sale and ACHD's widening of Maple Grove they haven't done it yet we don't want to go in and make our improvements until it is decided how wide that road is going to be and those improvements are in place. So we do have the old style buildings, we do not build those any more. Up here we have our State Street site,the one in the middle is an 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 46 addition at the Maple Grove site that we just completed showing the brick pillars the black vinyl fence and the landscaping of that. Because the staff report refers to and I know there has been concern and we have heard comments and by they way this is my last item, the concern for a neighborhood park. And I know the Comprehensive Plan speaks to a neighborhood park in a general way in that you would like to a neighborhood park for every 1,000 in population. We feel that this site, the transitional area seems to be the one that has attracted attention we should have put a retirement center on there in the beginning, since it has become a question if that would be a good neighborhood park. Our concerns about a neighborhood park there, 1. It would attract children from across Locust Grove and we have said a number of times here this evening, Locust Grove is scheduled to be a 5 lane road,that is like building a park on the other side of Fairview Avenue, granted it doesn't have the same traffic, but it is going to be designed to carry that same traffic. We have a neighborhood park directly across Locust Grove and we all know that children from the Carol and the one to the north those subdivisions they are going to be attracted to a park in that area. It doesn't seem to be a good idea to us anyway to attract those children from across Locust Grove and have the traffic back and forth especially if the shopping center is approved there and the traffic it will generate, and it will generate its own traffic. Children will also be attracted to the shopping center and here we would have truck traffic in the rear of the center and then of course the shopping traffic. Shopping centers tend to be adult centers and really not designed for children and play areas, but we all know how kids are it doesn't take them long to find a new place to play. The park would be on the fringe of a residential area. We feel that a neighborhood park should be accessible from several directions. Just a quick little map, a section map, we have Fairview on the bottom, top would be Ustick, the white area there would be Locust Grove. As I understand the Comprehensive Plan is a community park designed for somewhere in that area, which would be a mile from Fairview to Ustick Road, so we are 3/4 of a mile from Mirage subdivision to that neighborhood park. You can see that the arrow pointing to a park in that area that basically really should only serve Mirage Meadows, we don't want to attract the children form across the street even though that might be the case, you would have very limited scope and I think with a limited budget of the City that would be a consideration, can the City afford to support and maintain a neighborhood park in that particular area. You will notice over on the right hand side the neighborhood community church, park, and recreational facility, that is quite a large facility that is being proposed in conjunction with that church and it seems to me it make sense for the City to cooperate. This is from the article in the Idaho Business Review, "an 11 acre park including a baseball field for church members and little league 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 47 9 is planned. An amphitheater for concerts and other church and community gatherings is being designed. Wilde said he wants his congregation wants the new facility to be a center for the community as well as for church members." So we feel that maybe the park needs in that area although they aren't exactly adjacent to Mirage subdivision and we can't have neighborhood parks next to every subdivision but maybe that would answer the park needs in that area. So that there is no mis-understanding, I went through our application and I went through Wayne's staff report and put down what we are requesting and what we are agreed to. We are requesting that you annex the 40 acres with a CG zone into the City of Meridian, we are asking for a Conditional use permit to build the rental storage complex. All construction and development will be subject to a conditional use design review including neighborhood involvement, staff direction, agency approval, Planning & Zoning public hearings and City Council public hearings and approvals. What we feel we are agreeing to is that we will meet all commercial development entryway requirements both current and future whatever they might be we are very comfortable with that we have never lost one dollar on any development ever investing in landscaping and I appreciate the comment we won't be unreasonable on that but it is a good investment. We will work closely with Wayne and staff and I understand Wayne will be leaving we wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. We will work with staff and whatever is needed there to be a good neighbor and provide the kind of entryway into Meridian that you want. Pedestrian walkways will be provided, as we mentioned from Applewood to the loop road around the center there is an emergency vehicle access but it will otherwise be limited to foot traffic. We will provide a pedestrian walking path along the old Dixie Lane connecting Wingate and Dove Meadows and Mirage Subdivision to the shopping center. I met with Dave Leader today, I talked with him on the phone, he has indicated that he would be willing to tie Apricot into that walkpath and also I think he calls it Grapewood that culdesac to the south of Apricot and so that might be something the City would want to do to tie those in and tie in the church activity center that they are proposing. We are willing to do that and I will just add a precaution for the City, that if we provide Dixie Lane access up towards Fairview and then into the shopping center, the City would want to be real sensitive to keeping open the north end of Dixie Lane some kind of a pathway whether it be just a pathway through subdivision lots and as that old home in there at the end of oakcrest is acquired and put into the development there needs to be an access on into there to get onto oakcrest and to tie those neighborhoods in. We agree to provide the Conditional use permit of the shopping center will contain a full traffic study as per ACRD requirements. We will provide detail plans including landscaping plans, drainage plans, building plans, and other needed information will be provided for each C.U. permit application. We 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 48 are agreeing that a variance permit will be requested if deemed necessary for the resident manager of the facility and I understand what that is in the commercial zone we probably need a variance for a residence for a person to live, but we definitely want a security person on site and a maintenance person on site at our rental storage facility. We are entering into a development agreement with the city. We will help the City identify some alternative neighborhood parks and we will of course agree to pay all city imposed impact fees for the purpose of adding to and maintaining its parks, bikepaths, libraries, etc. We are in concurrence of the other requirements and conditions of approval, Kathleen indicated to me I didn't read to you all the benefits of rental storage facility there are many, they are quiet, clean, convenient, and that is it. Johnson: Okay Roger, thank you very much. Any questions of Roger before we turn it to the public? Shearer: Yes, I have one. With this presentation are you indicating that your landscaping and so on will be comparable to Southshore shopping center? Allen: In our shopping center area, yes. We just never found that landscaping didn't pay. You can be excessive of course, but generally clean, attractive appearance is important. Alidjani: It seems to me that there are 3 different projects, one is the present time, you are making a presentation for storage unit and shopping center and transitional use. what is your time table for each one of those and how far apart are they from one another? Allen: Okay, I have a time table in your packet there, I think the very last page in that presentation packet. To answer that directly, and I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, I should address you first. We would like to begin phase 1 of the rental storage development this spring and would be finished by fall. Generally, those occur over a 2 year period, so the rental storage we would build in 3 phases as you notice on the plan that is submitted, we have 3 phases to that. Our time table is to begin that right away and to complete it over the next 2 to 3 years. To be realistic on the shopping center and knowing the time it takes in negotiating with tenants and signing of leases and arranging of finances it would be 2 years probably 3 before the shopping center was actually under construction. It doesn't mean that there is a lot of work going on before that. And the retirement center, we would like to own and operate that but we want to do it as a joint venture as we have done Southshore, with the developer that knows that business, that is in the business maybe even a national franchise type of operation and join in with them. I don't have a time table on that 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 49 Ll I would imagine it would be at least a year in negotiations to find some one for that, does that help Mr. Alidjani? Alidjani: Well I looked at the record that is in the packet. Johnson: Any other questions? Hepper.: Your proposed use for a retirement center and that, if you can't find somebody that wants to put a retirement center there, potentially you might be coming back to us later on saying that you have another use in mind for that now what we had didn't work out, you had all these public hearings and stuff like that would you go through that again is this something that is pre -fixed this is really what you are going to try to hold to or is that just a concept you have in mind? Allen,: Mr. Chairman, definitely it is that is what we have identified. We feel that site is extremely unique in that it has the residential flare and yet is has the attraction of a shopping center from people that we have already talked with about it. It does make sense for a community or a retirement type of center. If we were to come back before you I am certain that we would begin with a review staff and a different proposal. We would talk to staff we would definitely have meetings with neighbors, we found that to be very productive and after the meetings with neighbors then we would come forth with our application again under the C.U, permit but never would the City. We feel that it is an ideal site and we feel that Meridian has need for a place for older people and this is not a nursing home that we are talking about but a retirement type that will provide meals and a place to live it kind of an apartment and they plan activities through the day but it is not a nursing they don't actually provide medical services and that type of thing. They are very popular the ones that I know several people that live in them and that would be our plan for that. Johnson: Any more questions? Thank you Roger, I'll now open the hearing to the public I would like to take those people with small children that need to leave first. Is there someone from the public: that would like to come forward? Wade Miller, 2005 East Oakcrest, was sworn by the Attorney. Miller: I would like to state that I was at one of Mr. Allen's neighborhood meetings, and it was very productive. I whole heartedly support his plan. My property is directly adjacent to the storage facilities and I feel that it would be a benefit for myself, my family to have that type of a transition from the commercial that is going to be on Fairview, whether strip or a large complex into the residential neighborhood. 0 r Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 50 Johnson: Thank you Mr. Miller, do you have any questions Charlie? Rountree: I had a question, the concept was possibly looking at some kind of agreement with adjacent property owners to care 10 feet of the landscaping, is that something that you would support? Miller: Oh yes, I would support that and I have talked to a number of my neighbors and they were pretty enthusiastic about it as well. I am familiar with the unit on State Street, I think it is a very nice unit I would like to have something like that back up to my house. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? John F. Jansen, 2100 N. Amethyst, was sworn by the Attorney. Jansen: Well firstly, it was a wonderful presentation and the neighborhood meetings and the impact area to the east of Locust Grove seem to be addressed quite a bit. Our house borders the Locust Grove on the opposite side of the street. As far as the impact on our side very little has been addressed which is a major concern, but really the first thing is a point of clarification. A questions was raised to ACHD as to whether Locust Grove is going to be 5 lanes, I didn't hear a real positive answer on that from ACHD. The reason I wanted the clarification is the planed development driving the need for a 5 lane highway down Locust Grove, or is vice versa. All the attention has been that Locust Grove is going to be 5 lanes, that has not been a real clear point I guess in my mind. Johnson: Okay, do you have any other questions? Jansen: Well, yes, the next concern or question would be that we are asking to shoulder the responsibility of parks and recreation on a private church. Again this is a concern. Johnson: Well, that church has been before this Commission on more than one occasion. The church has made it clear they did want to do that for the public. The thing that I questioned when it came up was their time table, we do not know their time table for the further development. Right now they have the building going, the park and the soccer fields and the baseball fields are kind of in limbo as to when that would actually be developed, but we are familiar with that plan it did come before us and did go before the City. Jansen: Is there a difference between their invitation to use their facility and my wanting to use a private church facility for my children to go play on? 1-1 L Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 51 0 Johnson: I doubt seriously the children would notice any difference, there may be a difference philosophically. Jansen: I would say there certainly is, and the final point. I don't doubt a need for a expanded shopping center, but I just want to make sure that the need does not justify the location. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. I will ask Mr. Sale, if he still here, if he would address the time table on the 5 lane road for Locust Grove. Anything else you need to address at this time would be fine, you need to be sworn. Larry Sale, ACRD, was sworn by the Attorney. Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, answering the last 2 questions first, and then a couple of points. Locust Grove road is on the ACHD 5 year work program identified for a design in 1995, right of way acquisition beginning in 1996 and construction possibly in 1998. It has been our experience that the schedules usually slips, I can assure it probably won't be constructed any earlier than that but some time within this century is probably a good guess. Its ultimate configuration at Locust Grove Road will have 4 through driving lanes, 2 lanes in each direction and a 2 way left turn lane. I gave away a document yesterday that I don't have with me, if it is on your pathway plan it will have 2 bike lanes. That will be a total ultimate constructed width of 70 feet from curb to curb with the bike lanes. A substantial amount of Locust Grove has been approved for 4 lanes starting immediately north of this proposed project and running for several hundred feet. WE like to get by as long as we can before we make expensive improvements like tearing out existing improvements so we would no doubt live with that 4 lane section north of this project as long as traffic would allow. Its obvious to us that the intersection of Chateau and Locust Grove will require 5 lanes on Locust Grove before the intervening sections. We can live with 4 lanes north of Chateau for example much longer than we can at the intersection. We will need turn lanes at Chateau. From Fairview north to those existing improvements the improvements when constructed will probably be constructed to a 5 lane facility. The gentleman's other question was is this development driving the decision as to whether or not Locust Grove will have 4 or 5 lanes. That answer is no, as a matter of fact this development doesn't drive the widening of any street, residential development drives the widening of streets. Commercial projects do not generate traffic, they attract traffic that is already on the streets coming from the places that we live. Earlier, Mr. Allen had a question about sidewalks on Fairview, we will require this project to construct curb and gutter and sidewalk along Fairview as the development proceeds along that frontage. That was made more, it was strengthened as I drove into 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 52 town and observed that the athletic club that you have not far from this project is apparently a raving success. (End of tape) because there were cars parked all over the place including some out on Fairview in front of a new curb and gutter that the project just put in. As a side issue the developer will be reimbursed for the installation of the curb and gutter and the pavement widening along the frontage as he will be for any right of way that we acquire along Fairview or Locust Grove through the impact fee program. He will be required to absorb the cost of the sidewalk because that is a, the Highway District's only concern at this time with this project is, forget that. The storage project by itself is a relative non -issue with us, it is a very low generator of traffic, the traffic comes at off peak hours. It is a good use for this location and we like it. We have a policy that requires the preparation and submittal of traffic study for any significant commercial development. We discussed among ourselves whether we should require that traffic study at this time or wait until the more intensive development that was proposed, I discussed that with Mr. Forrey and on his assurance and on the record here I would like to say that the Highway District will defer the submittal of a traffic study for the storage facility because there is nothing to study. We do request that the City make available to ACRD any future applications on this site so that at that time we will require a traffic study of the more intensive development. That concludes my comments to date Mr. Chairman and I think the questions that were raised. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Sale, any questions for the ACHD's representative tonight? Thank you Larry, returning to the public is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Barry Gwin, 1515 Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. Gwin: Chairman Johnson and members of the Commission, I am here to oppose the annexation of this property by the City until an acceptable development can be designed and proposed for this property. I appreciate the effort that the City has done on the Comprehensive Plan, but the idea of a satellite shopping center that strategy that is now proposed I believe will be better suited for a higher populated urban setting such as in a large city where they have limited vehicle access to shopping centers and requiring pedestrian traffic to get to the shopping areas. We in this area have a lot of people that drive to and from their shopping and a mile here and a mile there really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to most people. I would therefore propose that we as a City promote a development of a down town core rather than split stores over the entire City disrupting the previously developed residential areas. I would further propose this site be considered for a residential development such as the adjacent properties, this 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 53 would better retain the integrity and the continuity of the existing neighborhoods. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions for Mr. Gwin? Rountree: Barry, your first comment was you were opposed until a design is firmed up for something at this site, but then you basically indicate that you feel the site has a better use for something else. Gwin: Mr. Rountree, at this point the proposal to put a shopping center in and some storage areas and a retirement center, I don't think is conducive with the existing residences that are already out there. There is a lot of people that have concerns including myself that this is going to develop a lot of truck traffic, a lot of noise, a lot of trash that is similar in other areas of other shopping centers. We have concerns that as in other shopping centers that there is a transient problem, a crime problem that would be developed and pushed out into our area. We have some nice quiet clean residential developments that have sprung up in the last few years and that is the reason that we purchased those areas is to keep out in a nice quiet residential area. We don't want to be forced into a commercial zone, and that is what this proposal is doing to us. I feel that continuing that residential theme would be beneficial to everyone that lives out there. I think that it would continue that theme right along Fairview all the way out. Hepper: I have a quick question, Meridian has just recently re- done their Comprehensive Plan, and they had numerous public hearings, did you attend any of those public hearings and address any of those issues? Gwin: At this point in time, where we are at is not in the City of Meridian, so I wasn't notified of those particular meetings and I unfortunately am on the road so I wasn't able to attend those. Hepper: There were public notices, it was in the paper for weeks and weeks, and that was designated for that area. If you are opposed to that we would like to hear it. Gwin: I appreciate your comment, but at this time I still feel that this is a good process but I don't necessarily believe that the Comprehensive Plan should be considered concrete and I think that in the future you should continue to review that Comprehensive Plan and flex with the citizenry in the area. Shearer: Would you buy a home lot on the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove? 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 54 Gwin: If the development was much rather have a residential noise and a proper engineering commercial developments that we end up with trash, noise, live basically right behind Meridian Glass. I am very development. 9 bermed and shielded, I think I would lot with berming and shielding from type of development then to have the I am backed up to right now. Because we end up with a lot of things. I the Idaho Athletic Club, and the familiar with that commercial type Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Elizabeth Gwin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. Gwin: I guess you got my letter, I too oppose the annexation of any more property along North Locust Grove. right now my feeling is I wish the City of Meridian would just stop annexing property along Locust Grove. So far I have some pictures here I wanted to show you, these are some pictures, I'm not a photographer, I took of different developments along North Locust Grove and this is what we are getting from the City of Meridian. Presently where we live is in the County, but this is what starting to surround our area. One is of the Maws Addition subdivision, this is on Pine Street and North Locust Grove, apparently there is no landscaping in place at all. These people were told they would get berms for landscaping, they haven't gotten that. And then there was some compromise made, I think Mr. Forrey met with the neighbors and supposedly the developer is supposed to provide them with a fence, there is no fence in place. As far as I know the people haven't heard a thing from the developer at this time. The next one is along North Grove, it is just past Chateau Street. Suddenly the berming and landscaping and sidewalk ends and you can see there are weeds, rocks. I think the residents that bought in that area had to put up their own fencing, at their own expense. That has been there for quite a while, the weeds are growing up on it. Another view is something that has intruded on our subdivision, and this is the City of Meridian annexed the property for the Idaho Athletic Club, if you look at that there is inadequate parking, just like Mr. Sale said people are parking along the road. There is no landscaping in place at all, no water system, no screen fencing and there are pretty huge windows in the back of that building that intrude into the private backyards of 2 of my neighbors, and I listed their addresses there. So this is what we are dealing with from the City of Meridian and this is why I would just rather see you stop annexing any property right now until you can get your act together and get your inspectors out there and do some follow up on these subdivisions and developments and make sure that they do what they say they are going to do. So that is all I have to say about it. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? This isn't a pep rally. 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 55 0 Terry McCarthy, 1385 South Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. McCarthy: As I said I live at 1385 South Carol Street, that is one of the backyards that the Idaho Athletic Club looks into. I go along with Mrs. Gwin that the City of Meridian, I feel, does not have the manpower right now to review its developments, its businesses to see that the codes are being met. I liked to thank Mr. Forrey for coming over between Christmas and New Years and visiting with Liz and myself and going over and visiting the Idaho Athletic Club and pointing out all the violations of the City Ordinances that they have on their property. These are items that should have been addressed prior to that business opening. Those were not addressed, my fear is that is we allow additional developments, commercial developments those will be opened prior to meeting all the codes that the City has in place. I don't want to see that happen anymore. It is a real nuisance to have it, it infringes on our privacy, we have trash on our lot from this business and I don't think it is a good development. I feel that the other sites within the City limits are within the area that could be more better suited for such a development that Mr. Allen would like. The corner of Franklin and Locust Grove is an opportune site. I would say that at the business park where there is Pizza Hut, McDonalds, all those that is another place that would be more suited. Its got the going home side of the street that Mr. Allen talks about that the shopping centers want. I think those places should be considered before this lot should be considered. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Donahue: For the record, I was involved with the Comprehensive Plan, I came to quite a few meetings. The goals that we had on North Locust Grove, because I came to speak in that area, was we wanted to get a bike path going up that way and connect to the schools that are going to be built and to Chief Joseph and tot he parks going up further. The main goal of the Comprehensive Plan was pedestrian access connecters will be required in all new developments to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood identity and that was one of my strong issues that I was in favor of with the school district. The problem is when I went to one of these meetings the other day with the ACRD, the comment was that Locust Grove will go to 5, the question I had to him was North Locust Grove going up that street is a bus route, because our bus barn is below that that. Needless to say, Chief Joseph is a cross walk on North Locust Grove that the kids going to and from those neighborhoods to Chief Joseph and he said to me that if it went to 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 56 0 5 lanes, those kids would not be crossing the street anymore. They would have to be bussed to the school they go to within a mile, they can't even walk to their school. So this was a major concern because we are taking our neighborhood now that we try to preserve and keep and identity to all these subdivisions because we are having growth on North Locust Grove and we all want to fit in as a good community. So this is one of my main concerns, if we put a shopping center there and it is going to like they said promote traffic or its is going to make it want to come there, we've got children, we've got a school down the street and I kind of had an idea maybe why don't we put a park along side North Locust Grove, move the shopping center over, because the assets to access on that shopping center I don't have a thing, all those people exiting that shopping center those headlights are going to hit all those homes across the west side of North Locust Grove. So every time at 10:00 o'clock at night those people are going to have headlights going into their homes. There will be no privacy, I don't care if you put up 10 trees or a berms or whatever, when they exit that is going to hit their homes. So their neighborhood is going downhill because of that and you are not going to have a re -sale value because I don't know about you, but I would not buy a house if I had headlights that were going to be hitting by house every night. That was one of my ideas that I did bring up at that one meeting. For the better of the City of Meridian I think we need to take a closer look at what we are doing along Fairview and how much traffic we are getting into now. We've got that Idaho Athletic Club, I'm scared to death when it snows or cold weather to even turn right down that street because those people are pulling in and out of that athletic club when they are done. My main concern is that they do go ahead with this mini -storage on the other side is there going to be a turn lane turning into that with that Shoshone shopping center that is going to be mandatory so those people wanting to turn across cross traffic or are they going to be at their own will dodging into that entrance? I don't know if that has been addressed or not, I didn't see it in the plans. Other than that another reason for having a park along North Locust Grove, would also alleviate some of the traffic if they put the shopping center between the park and the shopping center and if they did put a retirement behind the people that wanted to go shopping the elderly would also have a place where they could sit and eat, thank you for your time. Johnson: Thanks Beverly, one question. Alidjani: I have one question, would you give us your address again? Donahue: 3775 North Locust Grove. 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 57 0 Alidjani: Is it also north on Fairview? Donahue: Yes, I'm above Ustick. Alidjani: Thanks Johnson: Anyone else like to come forward? Shearer: We might mention Jim that the traffic study will dictate the turn lanes, etc. at the time of development. Debbie Woodall, 1950 West Carol, was sworn by the Attorney. Woodall: First of all I'd like to state that you mentioned that we should have been at the meetings for the Comprehensive Plan. I was at one of the meetings for the Comprehensive Plan and I did address the issue of this complex going in at the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview. At that time I was called to waive my comments and to come to the Planning & Zoning because it was more beneficial here. That is why we are here. Please don't patronize us about not going to the meetings because we do. The second issue I'd like to talk about is traffic. I live in Carol subdivision and I was never notified because I do not live within the 300 feet boundary that they say you have to notify, I never got a notification of a neighborhood meeting, I never got invited to one but yet my only way to get to my home is by via Carol Street. There is one way in and one way out and that is it. That shopping center is going to be coming right out onto Locust Grove as I am trying to get out of my subdivision to go to work and to take my kids to school. Nothing has been addressed about that, I see the entrances all coming out facing Carol. That shopping center is going to right there, I am aghast when he said a grocery store, my god we are going to have tons of traffic. I am really very nervous about how we are going to get in and out of that subdivision. There is only one way in and out. We have no alternative routes to take, do we put a stop light, there is one not even a block away at the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview. If the traffic is backed up, just that little ways we are going to still have problems. I don't know how to get away from that except for not to have any entrances along that section right there so we can get out of that subdivision, because that is a very crucial. The police have to get in there, the fire department, everything. So there is only one way in and out. I also am concerned about once again as a couple of people have brought up about the enforcement that the City has, they tell these planners and developers go ahead and build this it all sounds good, whose going to make sure they abide to all of this, nobody does. I can see it when I drove down Locust Grove also. I'm very concerned about that. He mentioned that there was a grocery store that might be going in, why are we 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 58 0 wanting a huge grocery store to go in when Albertson's is only a mile away, to me that doesn't seem very feasible at all. I don't know if Albertson's is thinking about moving I have no idea, but doesn't seem live a very likely. My concerns for getting in and out of Carol Street are very big. Johnson: Okay, thank you Mrs. Woodall, anyone else that would like to come forward? J. Clouss, 1915 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Clouss: I've got a couple things to address. One is that I have a house that sits right on Locust Grove and the headlights are going to be right in our front room. I'm not sure how to address that, we have lost the sale of our house because the question was do you want to live there, no nobody wants to live there. So property values in that area are going to go down even though you do get a tax base from the commercial that they are proposing to put in. So, I'm definitely against the commercial zoning of that 40 acres. Another thing that I would like to point and that was in a few things in their statements or presentation earlier about the Southshore shopping center. They mentioned that when the development was done, there was commercial zoning on the property, so the people realized what they were buying into when they bought property in that area. When we brought property there, I had no idea that commercial would come up Locust Grove. I guess you might call it naive or whatever, but I just didn't see Meridian expanding that way and coming up to us. I could see residential over there, one of the proposals we made was to have one house per acre like we have in our current subdivision, a little bit larger lots that way the people that are currently in the Chateau subdivision wouldn't have the direct line out of houses into other peoples backyards, you wouldn't have that problem because of the boundary size, but that is one thing that I wanted to bring up. People weren't aware when they bought their property that there was going to be a shopping center there. Number 2, the Southshore has a buffer area between the residential area, all the way around it. It has roads on 2 sides, five lane roads on 2 sides with no adjoining residential on to those 5 lanes. The other 2 sides have their land right which is zoned for multi -family dwellings, whatever. Those come out into and face the shopping center, so I guess if you want to rent, that is what you get for your renting dollar. At least they know its there when they buy or rent. And we don't have that advantage here. I guess in closing I just want to say we are opposed to this going commercial, I think that the commercial would be better seen down on eagle road where we have access to the freeway, if you feel that Fairview needs somewhere along commercial venture, but down on that corner we have the freeway access, eagle road is definitely high impact, there is very little residential 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 59 9 around there to contend with. You are impacting through people, let them buy into it and know what they are buying. That is all I have. Alidjani: Your address is it out of Carol of north of Carol? Clouss: It is north of Carol. Alidjani: Would it be north of Chateau or south of Chateau? Clouss: South Alidjani: Thank you Johnson: Thank you Jay, any other questions? Anyone else? Karen Blayney, 149 Rainbow, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Blayney: I'm really nervous being up here so my voice might quiver a little. I own the lot right on the corner of Applewood and Oakcrest and just built a new home. When I bought that property a year and a half ago it was stilled zoned agricultural and not ever dreamed that they were going to zone it commercial and so I just found out about this about the time they started building my new house. I was shocked that I was going to be bordering a commercial development because I right now live on Fairview and Five Mile and I've been around Commercial developments for the last 10 years and there is a lot of traffic and stuff and it has really increased the traffic in the area. One of the things I was really looking forward to was getting out in this area where is was a lot quieter and I did shop for about 6 months before I purchased some property. For the last 16 years I have dreamed of owning my own property and finally building a home and I've managed to finally do it and now I am faced this all this traffic and noise and vagrants hanging out. One of the things Mr. Allen did say is that it would attract kids and having been around shopping areas, kids do go over there and play and I'm a little concerned about the traffic in there and the kids playing in that area just because there are no parks right there. The other thing would be the traffic, when Mr. Sale was up here he did talk about the 5 lane road being developed a few years down the line, from what Mr. Allen said it looks like we would have 2 or 3 years of the traffic from the shopping center going out into the existing road conditions. I would be looking right at the back of those storage units, what I would like to see is at least some berming and stuff, so I don't have to look at those metal buildings. I mean 3 trees every 40 feet just isn't going to make it. I don't want to be looking at the back of those buildings because I don't care what color it is its still ugly. As far as his proposal for us maintaining the 15 foot section, I wouldn't V M Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 60 have a problem with that, the problem I would have is paying for the water to continue to water and keeping it green. Mr. Allen did make looking at the back of the storage unit attractive, well the only thing I've got to say is if it is so attractive I will sell him my house and he can live there and look at it. That is basically all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, no questions apparently. You need to be sworn to ask a question. We have to get you on the tape and sort of thing. Susan Janson, 2100 North Amethyst, was sworn by the Attorney. Janson: My question is, have other developers come forward with other locations or this first developer that you folks have talked with, are we jumping too soon? Johnson: This is the first developer that has ever approached this commission. Janson: I think you know my point though, are we jumping too soon with this one. Is this the best alternative or have we done our homework? Johnson: This is something that the City of Meridian has had in their Comprehensive Plan since 1978. Janson: For this particular location? Johnson: No, I'm answering your question as truly as I can. To have sites designated for shopping centers, and we started and you know with the regional shopping center along the freeway and that didn't come to fruition. But it is in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan it is their desire to maintain their own identity and you can't do that unless you have commercial developments. Janson: And I would agree. Johnson: We are looking for good commercial development, suitable sites and improve our tax base so that we can maintain our own identity not become just a bedroom community, that is our goal whether we will reach it or not remains to be seen. It has been in the Comprehensive Plan. Janson: Definitely, and with the amount of growth coming in and certainly all the new residential we have to have a spot to go buy our groceries as the gentleman from ACRD mentioned we do have to have somewhere to buy groceries at, the question is where is the best spot. One of the neighbors mentioned when we all bought, we 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 61 were out in an agricultural area. We bought 3 years ago and it is a beautiful area. We did not know what we were getting into and that is what we are all here today to defend what we bought and to back up our home. Now we are sitting 2 miles down from Eagle which is 5 lanes and its sitting there and is ready. Have there been no developers that have come to the City of Meridian and wanted to develop there. Johnson: Not this type of development, we've had developers. There is a proposal right now that is coming, its either been approved or right on the corner or southeast corner of Eagle and Fairview that is being developed, part of that is commercial. Janson: Certainly, they have Yellow Trucking and what not. Johnson: No, that is on the other side. That is an industrial park on the east side. Janson: Okay, are you understanding my point? What I'm saying is ACRD is saying that it will be the next century by the time we get 5 lanes in there. So we are already a ways out here, can't we slow down and find a better location that when people go in and they buy there they know what they are getting, instead of coming into an agricultural based residential with young children, Chief Joseph elementary, can't we slow it down and make sure we put it in the right spot? Definitely we need it. Johnson: I guess its a question of where is the right spot. Without being argumentative, a lot of people see that as being the right spot. That property from an economic standpoint is way to expensive to develop residential. You won't see much more development if any on Fairview residential. Janson: Well, then do agriculture. Johnson: Well, its the people that own the property that decide what they want to do with it. Its not the city. Janson: Its you folks that approve what they do with it, if it is not good for their neighbors then it is not the right location. Johnson: We haven't had very many developments come before this Commission or the City Council where we didn't have opposition. Nobody wants anything in their own backyard. Janson: No, I agree Johnson: That happens all the time, so we get immune to this a little bit. 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 62 Janson: Well, you see I find that insulting though. I really do, Johnson: Your argument is with your realtor and the people that tell all you people that, wait a minute I'm making a point here, the point I'm making is that how could you come to Meridian buy a piece of property and think that that portion there will never be developed commercial. I heard somebody say that tonight and I can't believe that. Janson: Why do you call going to area that doesn't have residential putting it there and Johnson: I don't have a problem with it, we haven't had any applications for that. Janson: That is what I asked when I first came up here. Johnson: And I answered it Janson: So what is the rush, don't you think that eventually somebody will with the amount of growth coming this direction? Johnson: Perhaps, maybe a second one, we're not going to have just one. Janson: I think you should wait for it. Johnson: Okay, anyone else. Don Bryan, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Bryan: I'm afraid to say anything. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard spot on this development. Since I'm so closely affected by it, and between one side, well two sides, I'm the man in the middle. And which ever way I go, I'm not going to take sides for awhile I'm going to wait until the City Council meeting, but right off the bat I'd like to commend Roger Allen and his staff for the time they spent with all the neighbors and the way they proposed their project and made sure everybody was happy with it. The problems I've had with developers in the past it really was a good idea and I commend him for that. Some of my concerns are the Locust Grove Road, it started out when 2 or 3 years ago it was 50 foot right of ways, and then the new 4 lane was going to 60 feet and today I heard it was going to 70 feet for 5 lanes, and the traffic study is going to be composed when the development takes hold and gets going is it going to end up 7 lanes, where does it stop, it keeps getting bigger and bigger. We are talking 1998 before construction so that is one of my concerns. My heart really goes out the people that live on Locust Grove in the Doris 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 63 subdivision, they are stuck, they have back out on Locust Grove, they are going to across the street from a major development. There is a no win situation for them. And I feel for them, however, I don't feel for the people that are living in my ex - hayfield, because I feel the same way they do now that they are being infringed upon by development because when Mirage Meadows went in that is where I cut my hay and leased the land for the stock car race and I didn't want to see that development go in. I worked with that developer and really got burned and you well know and that is why I'm so anxious to work with Roger, I think that he has got a good proposal. I'm not taking a side though, yet. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would much rather look at the back of a one-sided garage or storage facility then I would a subdivision, everybody and their dogs and their kids, noise, boomboxes, traffic, I think I would be much more happy with the back of a storage facility or garage. Because of the fact that I have horses and I'm in my own little world. So that is how I feel about the development, and I will wait until the City Council to voice other concerns, but I'd like to confront a few of the problems we are going to have with Mr. Allen, they are not problems we can work them out, he has already talked to me about working them out. Upon commencement of the construction if and when it gets going on the storage facility, they are going to terminate that small house as a residence that is on the property right now that takes of 15 acres that they keep for stock on. my ditch lateral runs down the length of that entire side of his proposal. The reason it runs down his side is because they moved it over when they did the other development instead of tiling it and its been a problem with weeds and getting water down to there. What I would like to see since nobody is going to be there, and it such a hard piece of land to irrigate, I would like to see him tile that ditch right off the bat when he first turns the ground over to get that ditch tiled, so I won't have problems in the future. And along that same note, I have concerns about the access to that ditch and where is comes across the 3 different developments at the intersection of Dixie Lane and the 3 different people. There is going to be an area in there that is going to be no mans land and I don't want them to all fight over it while I'm not going to do it because its not on my land, there is a zig-zag that needs to be corrected and Roger told me he would take care of it. I just wanted to go on the record to make sure that was addressed. Another concern of mine is the elevations of the land, in the future the development of the retirement center or whatever he puts on that land the way it has been developed around my perimeter on the north and the east they have built up the land where it is much higher than my area that if and when I develop or whatever I do to my property its going to be the low man in the valley, because everybody is so far above my I'm going to have to haul in tons and tons of fill and put a 4 foot foundation to do any developing if 9 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 64 somebody was interested in doing that to my land. So something needs to be looked at that when they do their drawings. Johnson: Don, I don't remember, how many acres do you have? Bryan: Two, it is 1.6 or 1.7. Everything else I believe I can cover at the City Council meeting after you guys do your findings of facts. Johnson: You know the procedure Bryan: I know the procedure and I don't want to waste your time and mine. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Bryan? Bryan: I didn't say anything about storm drainage did I? Johnson: Anyone else like to testify? Fern VanPapeghan, 1490 Carol Street, was sworn by the Attorney. VanPapeghan: I am against the commercial development on Locust Grove and Fairview. They show 4 exits coming out on Locust Grove headed west. They have shown very little concern about the west side of Locust Grove for their development. I'm also concerned how we are going to get out of our subdivision with all the traffic and what have you. We have to wait 4 or 5 years for extra lanes to handle all this traffic and they are going ahead with their development. I want to go on record as being very much against it and I want to know how many units in this proposed retirement center? Shearer: It is not proposed yet. VanPapeghan: Well they've got it on the drawing board, is it one story, is it 3 story or haw many units? Shearer: It isn't proposed yet, it is just a proposal to do something there. VanPapeghan: Well, any way I'm very concerned for our value of our property. I think it is going to be a real pain in the neck. Because if want to sell it is like Jay we are going to be in trouble, nobody is going to want to live with it. When we moved out there 29 years ago we were out in the country and I do not mind running into Albertson's to buy a loaf of bread or to buy my lottery ticket. 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 65 Johnson: Let's hope you win the lottery. 0 VanPapeghan: I'd love it, I'd probably leave the area and move to the mountains if I do. Anyway I understand that Albertson's has bought Meridian Drug and is expanding there, so I don't think they are probably planning on moving out in that new development. It could be someone else, but I am against the project. Shearer: A lot of the concerns you have will be addressed at such time as they present for design review. The traffic study when it is done will dictate what the developer will have to do to the existing road. Turn signals and lanes all of those things will be determined by the traffic study. VanPapeghan: How long are we going to have to wait for that to happen. If he stalls Shearer: The traffic study will not start and will happen before the development (end of tape) VanPapeghan: I've been waiting 29 years to get a stop light at Fairview ad Locust Grove. We just accomplished that. Shearer: That is because of the growth that everybody is complaining about that we got that stop light. VanPapeghan: We needed it for a long time and with the school buses, the bus depot being to the south and traveling to the grade schools and what have you that is a busy street. I think we have all the traffic there we really need. Shearer: Well you know every place in Meridian is being impacted with traffic. We at 1990, what was our population something like 11,000. Johnson: 9,978 Shearer: So in 1990 we were 9,000 and something, last year there was a 1,008 new homes built in the City of Meridian. VanPapeghan: I think it was too many, I think they are over developed. Shearer: Now when you put that into perspective that is 2,50 added to the City, the traffic is going to be impacted and. VanPapeghan: I think they have over developed Meridian, really you go out Cherry Lane . 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 66 9 Shearer: You can't buy a lot in Meridian to build a house on unless you have a realtor and tim can give you the particulars he has been running around trying to find one to build some houses for some people on. VanPapeghan: I know, but I think as far as city water and sewer when you add these new developments you haven't really had adequate to supply. Shearer: There have been 2 major wells added just this year. VanPapeghan: But didn't they have trouble in a new subdivision to the Shearer: We have had trouble in several subdivisions, one just went on the line about 2 months ago over here at Vineyards which are all interconnected. We have the capability to pump approximately 5,000 gallons more than we did before those 2 pumps went on line. VanPapeghan: Well, anyway I am still against it. Johnson: Anyone else? Did you want to add to your comment? Woodall: You mentioned that should we have been more concerned those items, and I too find it offensive. One of the things that I would really like you know is, or to find out, I went to a City Council meeting, I voiced my opinion I was told to come to Planning & Zoning and now you are telling me I should have gone to City Council to voice my opinion. Johnson: I'm not telling you that, you are an exception to the rule. Most people when they do this have never been here before. Woodall: You gentlemen are here to listen as a neighborhood, and you had a roomful, practically our whole neighborhood, w need to stop and take a look this isn't for our neighborhood. As much as you joke and I have found it somewhat offensive that nobody is taking us seriously. Johnson: We take you seriously, I don't think you understand what we are here for. Our main purpose tonight Woodall: Your here for the citizen, when I vote for whoever I vote for, but what I'm saying is when I see the Planning & Zoning is to make sure that our community stays viable and represents the need of citizens. You have a roomful of citizens right here, they are telling what their needs are. And although Mr. Allen he has a beautiful drawing I've gone down to the parks center, I don't know • Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 67 11 how many of you have gone down there at 12:00 o'clock at night, me and my husband drove down there. We drove around the back, the bushes are like that, they are very small, they are nothing. The lights were so bright, there was no place that you could go to walk that you could the stars. That is what we came to Meridian for, we did not come to Meridian for Boise. If I wanted Boise I would have moved to Park Center. I didn't want that I came to Meridian, who had a picture of a nice hometown on their back, that is not Meridian anymore. you of the Planning & Zoning need to listen to your citizens and preserve what we need in our neighborhood. This shopping center is not what we need in our neighborhood. Maybe you might think it is a great tax base but please move it someplace else, move it to someplace it doesn't impact any citizens. We are not talking people who have only been here a year or two, people in our subdivision those houses have been there for years. Who would have known 30 years that Meridian would have been like this. I really think that the Planning & Zoning needs to take a more serious look at how our citizens are being impacted, does it matter or is it just a tax base that you are looking for? Shearer: We spent all summer doing exactly what you are talking about, and our big input when a development comes nobody wants it in their backyard. The logistics of Fairview, East 1st, Cherry Lane are obvious locations for commercial development. Woodall: Then put some buffers where those residential area are. What is being proposed does not have buffers to my subdivision. I am coming out to a shopping center, there are no buffers. Seriously take a look at some buffers. What he is proposing is not offering us citizens on Locust Grove any buffers. Shearer: I feel for the people that are built right on Locust Grove, they have the old house that are fronting on Locust Grove. And it would be a bad situation even without this development, just the number of subdivisions, it is going to be, and there are going to be more subdivisions to the north on Locust Grove. I know you hate to hear it but. Woodall: I think people are willing to accept that, I think what you are hearing though is that this proposal is not going to work for our neighborhood, it needs to go back and not just. Mr. Allen I would have really like to have been invited to your meeting, Johnson: Mam, you have to talk to us, that is one of the rules of the Commission. Woodall: But you testified to me that there were neighborhood, there weren't any neighborhood meetings except for maybe 300 feet in 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 68 9 Carol and yet I am impacted by the shopping center. I got no input, I would really like to Johnson: I think what he did was voluntary on his part he wasn't required to do that, he did that in the best interest of the people that live there. There is no requirement that he do that. Woodall: Planning & Zoning you really need to listen to what your citizens are asking and you have a roomful of citizens right now and they are telling you please stop it before it goes any further and sit down and think about what is happening. Johnson: Well, there are several of us that don't feel that way, I'm sorry. Development is just one of those things that you can't put a lid on. You can't stop the people from coming, they are going to keep coming here. And there are people out there who are just dying to sell their property and have it developed. If you don't believe me, try to go out and buy some land. VanPapeghan: I would like to make one more comment, when he mentions 3 bushes on 40 feet, I don't think that is adequate for berming are screening or anything, I probably have 50 bushes on 40 feet at my house because I wanted it private. We have it screened and we have it private out there. Alidjani: Well I believe you already bought your lottery so you can afford all those trees. VanPapeghan: We've been there for 29 years and we have been growing them ever since. I think 3 bushes in 40 acres is not adequate to screen. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? McCarthy: Looking at Fairview Avenue from Orchard Street in Boise to out beyond Ten Mile in Meridian all of the development that is along there particularly on the north side is maybe a block deep at the most maybe 2 blocks deep. Mr. Allen's development is substantially more than 2 blocks deep and I understand your concern you want a community shopping center but I think for the pattern that has gone on Fairview I think it needs to stay the block to 2 blocks deep, put residential on the north end of that and keep is consistent with what the neighborhoods are in the area. Again there are other areas within Meridian that you can put a shopping center that can be a deep as what Mr. Allen is proposing, out by the freeway on Franklin other places, Eagle Road. Thank you. Donahue: The problem is we all have to work tomorrow too, I think in the future when we have this long of talks I think we should 1] Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 69 0 close it off at 11:00 and have it at the next meeting because there are this many people that need to speak and there is this much of an impact of a decision that needs to be made. We should maybe stop these meetings at 11:00 and do it for the next following one. Because half the people have left, I'm sure they are tired, we are all tired, we need to go home and really think seriously what impact it is going to have on our lives. I've got to go, good night. Johnson: Does anyone else have anything before I close the public hearing? Gwin: I want you to know I spent the last 3 months driving around to Mr. Allen's developments looking them over, trying to decide if that would be something I want in my area. I spent a lot of time talking to neighbors, and I spent a lot of time looking at the developments I gave you the pictures of. I also spent a lot of time at City Council meetings. The letter I wrote to you, I sat down at my typewriter and I decided I would try to compose my thoughts. Johnson: You wrote 2 letters didn't you? Gwin: I wrote a lot of letters, but the last letter I wrote. Johnson: You are talking about the one you wrote on January 10th, that is the one you we are over our head, it is a travesty, how dare you and a boondoggle. Gwin: Yes, that is it. I put a lot of thought into that as you know and a lot of feeling and that is the way I write so you will probably get some more like that. Listen to what the people in this area are saying, I live in Doris Subdivision it has been there since 1959, it is a good area to live we have big lots, we have a lot of really nice houses some are located along North Locust Grove not all of them are old houses. Mr. Clouss's house is about 5 years old. They are well maintained, they are well kept. You are not going to see those kind of lots and brick houses, roman stone houses, you are not going to see those built for middle class people anymore so our neighborhood is valuable it is something that needs to be preserved and as far as Mr. Allen's development there are a lot of things that he hasn't said that happen around Southshore and I'm not sure if it would be good for me to repeat what people around Southshore told me. Some of them told it to me in confidence and they don't want their names used, it is not the rosy picture he is painting for you, and also there are some aspects of his developments aren't exactly as lovely as he has laid them out to you. I wish that all of you and the City Council would take time to drive at least drive through out neighborhoods, at 0 Planning & zoning January 11, 1994 Page 70 0 least go look at these sites of the pictures I gave you and see what is happening to Locust Grove Road it is just starting to look like a junky along there. We don't need anymore bad development. Development can come in but it doesn't have to destroy neighborhoods and it doesn't have to be shoty and I don't think that is what you want from Meridian and it is sure not what I want, I don't want it for any area of Meridian. If you want to see more pictures, I thought about driving up and down a few other roads and taking some pictures of things that have really distressed about development. Development doesn't have to be that way. I don't know how much input you can give to the developers but get them to put some innovation into their development, so that you don't end us with something that is worthless in a few years. I think you are really asking a lot of the people in this area because as soon as this development goes in they are probably going to take a 6% cut on the value of their property and that means quite a lot to people when they have to sell their property. Mr. Clouss can testify to that, his realtor has told him that already and he hasn't been able to sell his property and its not anything that is an undesirable home its a nice home if you just drive by and look at it you'll see it is a nice 2 story house, he built it himself and its a decent place but like I said he is not able to sell it right now. Have a little feeling and compassion for our neighborhood. Shearer: We do mam, I know you don't believe that but we do. Gwin: Some of you do. Woodall: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I wanted to get up as soon as Mrs. Woodall talked because it was very emotional and I wanted to let her know that I believe within 300 feet there were approximately 90 people that were notified, Mrs. Gwin gave me an additional list of some people that would like to know what is going on with that piece of property and I included those additional 40 names on my list and Mrs. Woodall is on my list and I will go home and find out why possibly it was returned to me but I want her to know we did invite her she is on my list. I noticed in Carol it is West Carol, East Carol and North Carol and possibly the north or one of those things have been left off, but her name is on my list. Johnson: Mr. Forrey, would you like to give us some concluding remarks? Forrey: one though that I'd like to pass onto the Commission and tot he citizens. Based upon the experience that some property owners have had with Idaho Athletic Club, I could see why the confidence would be low. In our ability as public administrators 0 0 Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 71 to deal with development. I've met with Mr. Wardle, he is a fine gentleman, I am not commenting on the business side, but he was unaware that he needed screening, landscaping, irrigation tot he landscaping or a receptacle around the trash and that is City fault. It is not the Commissions fault and not the City Councils fault that is City staffs fault. The City recognizes that, there is an opening for a new Zoning Administrator for the City, the City wanted me to go full time I am just able to work part time in the community so the Council is putting money behind that. They recognize that somebody has to track and help developers and enforce the Ordinance. Now in the case of buffering or ordinance is very specific. Mr. Allen has no choices, it says that he has to buffer his property from the adjoining residential. And so you will have a marvelous opportunity to define what the proper buffer is and the City staff will uphold that and I'm sure Mr. Allen will participate, but ineffect he has no choice because the ordinance says that you have to be buffered. And I'm saying now that there is a renewed commitment, I don't think the commitment was ever lacking it is just that the City of Meridian didn't have the people power inside City Hall to get out and cross all the is and dot the i's. I think it has been recognized now as very critical in the development process. City staff is taking this very serious, I've taken a lot of notes, we read the minutes verbatim. The Commission is at every meeting they have instructed staff to follow up to those conditions, right Don? Please don't feel that the Commission or the Council does not have a commitment to high quality development they certainly do and we are going to catch up we are getting better, we are getting smarter at this. If this project is approved and I don't think the decision has been made but if it is I can assure you that the City staff will make sure that you are taken care of regardless if you are in the County or in the City you will be taken care of. We will have quality development or a permit will not be issued, thank you. Johnson: Thanks Wayne, anyone else have anything to add before we close the public hearing. I'll now close the public hearing, what is your pleasure gentlemen? Rountree: I make the motion that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared on the topic. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Planning & Zoning January 11, 1994 Page 72 Crookston: Can I have 3 months to do that? Alidjani: I make a motion to adjourn Mr. Chairman. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion to adjourn all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) IM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., T CLERK ! ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THE WESTPARR COMPANY, INC. ANNEXATION AND ZONING NE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 19 T.3 N. R.1 E., B.M. SPORTSMAN POINT SUBDIVISION NO. 4 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on January 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 Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant, Greg Johnson, appearing in person 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 January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 11, 1994, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 0 9 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 13.26 acres in size; it is in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Locust Grove Road and Overland Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the property be zoned and stated that the use proposed now would be for R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is zoned R-4, Residential, but is developed with approximately 2 to 3 dwelling units per acre; the Applicant represented that the density of this property when developed would be 2.7 lots per acre. There are 36 building lots proposed to be developed on the property. The Applicant has also filed an application for subdivision approval. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 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 requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 10. That the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for single family dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that the lots would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per lot and that the minimum square footage would be 1,500 square feet; and that the value range would be between $120,000.00 and $165,000.00. The Applicant further represented that there would be landscaped berms along Overland Road and Locust Grove Road. 11. The Applicant further represented at the public hearing that there would be a park included in Sportsman Point No. 5 and a neighborhood park in Sportsman Point No. 3 and that the parks would be maintained by the home owners, association and the parks would have playground equipment for children with volleyball, etc. for adults. 12. The Applicant further stated that he would comply with the comments of the Meridian City Engineer and represented that there would be pedestrian access along the Nine Mile Drain. 13. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 14. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 lots. 0 0 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 17. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, the Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or 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) dwellings 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. 19. 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, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 "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 . ." 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family arrangements), . . ." "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." 23. 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. 24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 9 0 25. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of an adequate elementary school site to serve this development area; that a pathway concept design plan must be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation for their approval and compliance with the Ada County Pathway Plan. The Planning Director further stated that a condition of approval of the preliminary plat should be a redesign to include a pedestrian bridge over 9 Mile Creek to link the various existing subdivisions together and meet the School District's need for pedestrian access between subdivisions. The Director further commented that a development agreement must be entered into addressing subdivision linkage, school and recreation services and that such agreement must be entered into prior to final plat approval. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 26. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 costs of building additional schools. 27. 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. 28. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 0 safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 30. 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." 31. 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;" 32. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved 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; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 0 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 33. 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 Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 0 0 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is the titled 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. Burt vs. The City 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, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant must agree FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 0 0 that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development. 11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation. However, the 9 Mile Drain must meet the Ada County Pathway design. 14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; 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 require#d 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey; that the development agreement shall, as a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 0 0 condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, 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. 15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district shall be exceeded pursuant to the Applicant's representations and the minimum house size shall be 1,500 square feet and be constructed at a value of not less than $120,000.00$165,QOO-00 . 16. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 19. That if these conditions of approval are nert met the not - property shall be subject to de -annexation. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 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 4P,, COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED 7 COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the 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 and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation except for the 9 Mile Drain which must comply with the Ada County Pathway Plan, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met the property shall be de -annexed. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 0 0 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DICK CON CORPORATION ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SECTION 2, T. 3N., R. 1W., B.M. TUTHILL SUBDIVISION NO. 2 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on January 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 Brian Smith of Hubble Engineering, P.E., 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 January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page I 0 0 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 14.35 acres in size; the property is east of Ten Mile Road between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be 8,000 square feet, that there would be 50 lots in the proposed subdivision, and that the value range of the property would be $100,000.00 or greater, and the Applicant's Engineer stated at the hearing the R-4 house size would be a minimum of 1,400 square feet and that Applicant would have no objection to 9 Mile Drain being a pathway. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-4, Residential fashion. 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 the owners, T. Kent Mills and Donna G. Mills, have submitted their consent. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 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 agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 3.48 dwelling units per acre. 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application. 11. That the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for single family dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that the lots would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per lot and that the minimum square footage would be 1,400 square feet; and that the value range would be between $100,000.00 and up. 12. The Applicant's representative stated that there would be compliance with the comments of the Meridian City Engineer and represented that his clients would favor 9 Mile Drain coming under the Ada County Pathway Plan. 13. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 0 0 agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 17. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, the Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or 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) dwellings 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. 19. 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, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 0 9 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 . 11 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: 111.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses arrangements), . . ." "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." 23. 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. 24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 0 S comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of adequate fire protection to serve this development area; that a pathway concept design plan must be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation for their approval and compliance with the Ada County Pathway Plan. The Planning Director further stated that the Meridian comprehensive Plan indicates a need for a fire station in this area. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat should be a redesign to include an access street and bridge to the east over 9 Mile Drain to link various existing subdivisions together and meet the School District's need for pedestrian access between subdivisions. He further commented that sewer lot number 18 should allow pedestrian access. The Director further commented that a development agreement must be entered into addressing subdivision access linkage and fire services and that such agreement must be entered into prior to final plat approval. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Director 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 approved development agreement. 26. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 • that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 27. 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. 28. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 0 0 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. 29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 30. 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." 31. 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;" 32. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 0 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." 33. 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 Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning 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 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 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. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is the titled 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. Burt vs. The City 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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development. 11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation. However, the 9 Mile Drain must meet the Ada County Pathway design. 14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 0 0 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey; 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 impact, development, 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. 15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district must be met and house must be constructed at a value of not less than $100,000.00. 16. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 19. That if these conditions of approval are jae£ met the hc'f property shall be subject to de -annexation. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 1 0 • 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 VOTE COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ALIDJANI 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 as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation except for the 9 Mile Drain which must comply with the Ada County Pathway Plan, 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: APPROVED:_-" DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 24, T.3 N., R.1 W., B.M. ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on January 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 Applicants appearing through their engineer, Gary Lee, 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 January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 11, 1994, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 16.28 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R -T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the majority of the property be zoned R-4 with a small portion, .70 of an acre zoned R-8, which portion is adjacent to that portion of Elk Run Subdivision No. 1 which is zoned R-8 and stated that the use proposed would be for proper residential as dictated by the respective zone. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the property to the north is used residentially; that there is R-4 residential property to the east across the Meridian/Kuna Highway; the property to the south is agricultural. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property and has requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 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 requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the property is included within FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 the area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Single Family Residential area 9. There were no property owners, or anyone else, appearing at the hearing to object to the application. 10. That the Applicant,s representative indicated that the intended development of the property is for single family dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that the lots zoned R-4 would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per lot and that the lots zoned R-8 would have a minimum square footage of 6,500 square feet; and that the value range would be between $85,000.00 and $125,000.00. 11. The Applicant's representative stated at the hearing that there would be 42 single family dwellings, a 2.6 density per acre. 1370 square feet to 2,200 square feet in each dwelling, a common space of for landscape buffer, that lots would be landscaped and fenced, that the developer agrees with the comments of the City Engineer but desired clarification on one regarding the water line near Highway 69; that there would be no school site within the subdivision but that they had no disagreement with the letter from the Meridian School District, that in the area zoned R-4 there would be 80 feet of frontage and 1,400 square feet in the dwellings; that the tiling of the Kennedy. required as a condition under Elk Run No. 1, would be completed as part of Elk Run No. 2. 12. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 until urban services can be provided. 13. 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. 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, the Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or 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) dwellings 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 R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: "(R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 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." 17. 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, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 18. 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 . 11 19. 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." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: 111.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 0 "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. 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. 22. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan, that the developer should extend the Meridian Road sewer trunk line to the south side of the Kennedy lateral to facilitate business development south of this project; the director also stated that the Meridian School District was attempting to secure an elementary school site next to Meridian Greens Subdivision to serve Elk Run and other subdivisions in the area and that development of this subdivision should include a development agreement which stipulates that an adequate school site has been acquired by the School District before final plat approval of Elk Run No. 2.; that the City received a copy of a letter mailed to The Development Company which stated that this development is adjacent to the Kuna/Meridian Road and is too small for a school and the District is not interested in locating a school in this subdivision. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 0 That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 24. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 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. 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 (101) 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 (201) 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 FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 0 0 the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved 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 Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That the Applicant submitted an application for preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and zoning which application included a preliminary plat. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 0 9 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning 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 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 use application under Idaho Code, 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. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, owners of the property, 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. 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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development. 11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, except for any requirement that a school site must be FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 0 0 located in the Applicant's proposed subdivision, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; 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 require#d 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, except as noted herein regarding the placement of a school within the proposed subdivision; 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 impact, development, 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. 15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 and R-8 districts must be met and those representations of Applicants FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 0 0 representative made at the public hearing, which are recited in Paragraph 10 of the Findings of Fact and houses must be constructed at a value 4aetween $85,000.00 as represented in the application for subdivision approval. 16. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 and R-8 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 19. That if these conditions of approval are -aet met the not 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 BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13 0 0 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 as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals and waterways, 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: APPROVED: -DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE REZONE APPLICATION 408 WEST CHERRY LANE FROM RESIDENTIAL (R-8) TO LIMITED OFFICE (L -O) MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners, Robert and Francille Whitmire not appearing, but appearing through their representative Sheryl Ott -Ward. 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 notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 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 is owned by Robert and Francille Whitmire, Whitmire Construction; Applicant being Cheryl Ott -Ward, The Real Estate FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 i Group. The property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-8 Residential; the area surrounding is a mix of commercial and residential use properties. 3. That the property to be re -zoned from R-8 to L -O is proposed to be used for construction's business office. 4. That this zone change request complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and development objectives in this portion of the City. 5. That the L -O District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L -O) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L -O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 6. That the property is located west of Meridian Road on Cherry Lane in area of mixed residential and commercial use. 7. Applicant feels this property would be compatible with other small businesses that have minimal traffic flow. 8. The circle driveway offers easy off access on Cherry Lane and feels that it would not impede the traffic flow. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 9. Wayne Forrey, City Planner, commented that the property site is within the proximity of concentrated commercial neighborhood and other L -O zoning which promotes the City's goal of clustered business uses and discourages strip development 10. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that the present structure has paid an assessment of 1.0 Equivalent Residential Units; that this should be adequate for a construction office use; that water lines are located 12 feet east and north of street centerline; that sewer laterals are located on the west and south side of street centerline; that for office use the Ordinance requires one (1) parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area; that landscaping, sprinkling, screening, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be done in accordance with Section 2-414 (D) "Design Standards for Off -Street Parking" of the City Zoning Ordinance; that any advertising sign shall be done in accordance with the Uniform Sign code, (Section 2-415 - Signs). 11. That the Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District and the Meridian Police Department submitted comments. 12. That the Ada County Highway District requires a minimum of 90 -feet of right-of-way on arterials in an urban area, width sufficient for 5 traffic lanes, 5 -foot sidewalks, and bicycle pathways. 13. That the property is located on Cherry Lane and it is designated an Entryway Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan; the Entryway Corridors Goal Statement includes the following statement: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 • i 4.4U Encourage 35 -foot landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 14. That there have been recent zoning changes along Cherry Lane to allow commercial and limited office uses, including dental and orthodontic offices, insurance offices, day care, and there have been such uses along Cherry Lane for some period of time. 15. There were no comments given at the public hearing 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 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 (K) 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 specifically concludes as follows: (a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The property located on 408 West Cherry Lane is designed for residential but there are other uses which support residential needs and a mix of those uses and a rezone of the subject property for use as a construction business office is in line with that use. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment property is in the proximity of existing concentrated commercial neighborhood and other Limited Office Zoning which promotes the City's goal of clustered business uses. (d) There has not been a change in the area or adjacent area which may dictate that the property should be rezoned but the property will be developed in a fashion which comports with the existing development and the planned residential development in the area. (e) That the property must be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) The proposed use 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) The proposed use would 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 0 0 (j) Development should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (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 the City Engineer, Central District Health Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, will be met and complied with. 7. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District shall have to be complied with. 8. As a condition of rezoning, if there is room, the property shall meet the requirements of the Entryway standard of a 35 foot landscaped set back. 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 t` VOTED VOTED VOTED l �� VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 • 0 DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, Sewer Department requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and that the Applicant meet the 35 foot landscaped set back required under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: APPROVED: tj DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GLENN and MILDRED NYBORG FAMILY TRUST REZONE 1660 WEST CHERRY LANE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through Terry Nyborg, the Planning & 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 was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 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 Applicants are Glen and Mildred Nyborg and the owner of the property is the Glen and Mildred Family Trust, Glen and Mildred Nyborg, Trustees, is the owner of record of the property which property is described in the application which description is FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 0 incorporated herein. 0 3. That the property is now zoned R-4; the area in which Applicant's property is located was farm ground but is now being developed as an R-4 residential subdivision; that the property to the east, west and north is either zoned R-4 or is developed as residential; the property to the south is Cherry Lane and an R-4 subdivision. 4. That the Applicant requests that the property be re -zoned from R-4 to L -O Limited Office; that the Applicant proposes to use the property as a real estate agency office. 5. That the use proposed by the Applicant is an allowed use in the L -O district; that there is property at the southwest corner of Linder Road and Cherry Lane, to the south, that is used and zoned for commercial purposes. 6. That the L -O District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L -O) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L -O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 7. That the property is contained in an area depicted for Commercial and Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 0 8. That the subject property has previously been used as a residence; that the structure on the premises is designed as a single-family dwelling. 9. That the property has an access point on Cherry Lane; Cherry Lane is a principal arterial and carries a substantial amount of traffic. 10. That sewer and water is already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 11. The City Planner submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that he commented that the rezone generally complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the rezone would provide an effective, low impact buffer between the Linder Road and Cherry Lane arterial intersection and the R-4 subdivision which surrounds this approximate 8/10th acre site; the site is within the proximity of concentrated commercial neighborhood and other L -O zoning which promotes the City's goal of clustered business uses and discourages strip development; that a development agreement is required stipulating compliance with all City site development standards and the Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector checklist's. 12. That Ada County Highway District did submit comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that the Central District Health Department had no objection. 13. That the residential subdivision adjacent to where the property is located was approved within the past year and one-half; the owner of the subdivision did not appear objecting to the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 0 application. 14. That the property is located on Cherry Lane and it is designated an Entryway Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan; the Entryway Corridors Goal Statement includes the following statement: "4.4U Encourage 35 -foot landscaped setbacks for n e w development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors." 15. That proper notice has been given as required by law and 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 statutes 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 0 0 Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That Section 11-2-416 A. states in part as follows: "When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or zoning and development practice require, the Council . . . may amend, supplement, change,, or repeal the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or classification or property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 6. That 11-2-416 (K) 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 specifically concludes as follows: (a) The L -O zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is designated in a Commercial and/or Mixed -Planned Use area. (b) The area was not intended to be rezoned in the future but there is a commercial property to the south of the subject property. (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be used in the fashion that would be allowed under the proposed new zoning. (d) There has been change in the area or adjacent areas which dictate that the property could be rezoned, that being the addition of the Maverik store and the car wash facilities being constructed across Cherry Lane. (e) That the property, is designed and should be used as allowed in the L -O District, and as it presently exists, would be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area, which is to be and is developed in the R-4 fashion. (f) The L -O use would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property, if developed in the L -O fashion, would be FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 E E able to be adequately served with public facilities. (h) L -O development would 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 would not involve uses, activities, processes materials, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to any person, property or the general welfare of the area however the traffic would be increased more than it would be under R- 4 use. hot (j) Development in the L -O district, and particularly as planned by the Applicant, would cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if the R-4 use was continued. (k) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. 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. 8. That 11-2-416 A of the Zoning Ordinance states, in part, as follows: "When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or zoning and development practice require, the Council may amend, supplement, change, or repeal the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or classifications of property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 9. That Section 11-9-605 M., PIPING OF DITCHES, of the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 Subdivision and Development Ordinance requires piping of ditches, canals and waterways and that ordinance shall be complied with as a condition of development of the limited office if there are ditches, canals or waterways on the property. 10. It is further concluded that, upon development, the comments, recommendations and requirements of the other governmental agencies shall have to be met and complied with as would the ordinances of the City of Meridian, particularly including the paving, lighting and landscaping of the parking area. 11. That the Applicant shall be required to have a 35 foot landscape set back from Cherry Lane because Cherry Lane is an entryway and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that upon development the City shall require the 35 foot set back. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTEDY-'e-j CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 0 0 DECISION .kf (o—'/i,r/3'. The Meridian City-Ce� hereby approves the Rezone for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these 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, the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian, including that all parking areas shall be paved, lighted and landscaped and the 35 foot setback for entryway roads shall be met. MOTION: APPROVED: YDISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE A PORTION OF -THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE S.W. 1/4 SECTION 5 T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on January 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 Planning and zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicants appearing through Kathleen Weber and Roger Allen, 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 January 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 11, 1994, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 i 01 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 40.45 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R -T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G) and has requested a conditional use permit to allow storage units. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used mostly as residential property with some being used agriculturally; that the property to the north is used residentially as R-8 zoned property; that the land to the west across Locust Grove Road that is not in the City of Meridian but in Ada County that is used as residential property which is similar to what the City zones as R- 4; the property to the south across Fairview Avenue is agricultural or vacant land; the property to the east is a commercial building with several different types of uses. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That Roger Allen, who is the general partner in the limited partnership that owns the property, is the Applicant; that the owner has consented to the application and has requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural with the original house and out -buildings intact; that the proposed use is FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 0 • for a commercial shopping center, rental storage facility and transitional uses; that the land is presently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional (RT); that Applicant lists the following as characteristics that make it desirable to be zoned C -G: "a. From a traffic planning standpoint, the location of this site makes it highly functional to receive commercial uses. The site is located at the intersection of a principal arterial and a major collector that is signaled. b. The continued growth of residential developments around this site is increasing the demand for a commercial site to keep place with neighborhood need. C. It is the intent of the planning effort in this area to cluster commercial development thus avoiding strip development. This site is of adequate size to accommodate Commercial and Multiple(s)." 8. That one of the Applicant's representatives, Kathleen Weber, stated at the hearing that the development would compare with South Shore project in Boise; that berming at the back of the building goes up six feet on the building; that there would be a retirement center in the northwest corner; that they would screen out the noise from the traffic; that there would be a retirement center next to Mirage Meadows; that their storage buildings provide a single sided, one story landscaped buffer for maximum backyard peace and quiet; that they intended to close Apple Street; that they would meet the Ada County Highway District site specific requirements; that there would be bike lanes and walking paths would be incorporated into the development with sidewalks possibly within the berming along Locust Grove; that ACED will decide the alignment of Carol street but„t4r6_AVest would work with both ACED --that and the neighbors regarding this concern; that each and every part FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 of the project will have to go through conditional use hearings and design review and such will be required; that there would be a 400 foot buffer for Mirage Meadows from the rear of the proposed shopping center; that the requirements for approval regarding irrigation and the comments of Gary Smith would be met; that regarding the widening of Locust Grove Road such would be in the hands of ACHD but they would participate with berming sidewalks and landscaping; that they agree to pay impact fees and/or make a monetary donation to the City for purchase of property that is more suitable for parks. 9. That one of the Applicant's representatives, Roger Allen, stated at the hearing that the City would maintain control over development of the property through required design review and conditional use permit approval; that the project would have a 12 to 16 million dollar value; that they would pay impact fees, whatever those might be; that there would be a minimum of twenty feet of berming all the way around the shopping center and it would be nicely landscaped, sprinkled and sodded; that there would be sidewalks along Fairview Avenue; that they would like to pursue a retirement center in the northwest portion of the property; that for the neighbors across Locust Grove, there would be landscaped berming six to eight feet high; that in the back there would be clusters of at least three trees every 40 feet; that in the area next to Mirage Meadows they were proposing to have the neighbors backyards extended to the back of the storage buildings and it could be for the use of the neighbors if the neighbors would FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 maintain the property; that pedestrian walkways would be provided; that they would provide a pedestrian walkway along what is now Dixie Land; that they would provide detailed plans for landscaping, drainage, building and other needed information for each conditional use application; that they would help the City identify some alternative neighborhood parks and agree to pay all City imposed impact fees for the purpose of adding to and maintaining its parks, bike paths, libraries, etc. 10. That the Applicant submitted a bound packet of information for support and clarification of the applications to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission; that in the packet of materials the Applicant states that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for multiple use including a community shopping center; that infrastructure is in place for a shopping center; that the City will maintain control over development of the property through required design review and conditional use permit approvals; that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates a community sized shopping center at this location; that all physical ingredients for a major shopping center are present at this site; and that the information lists the benefits of a shopping center, including providing physical improvements of additional widening of Locust Grove, bike lanes, a minimum 20 foot landscaped berming along Locust Grove, sidewalk along Locust Grove preferable in the berming and modern landscaping and buffering. 11. There were property owners appearing at the hearing to make comments on and object to the application; that the property FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 owners stated the following: a. Wade Miller stated that he supported the plan; that he had talked to several of his neighbors and they were in support of taking care of the landscaping that was planned next to the storage units. b. John F. Jansen stated that he wondered whether this development is pushing Locust Grove to be a five lane road or whether Locust Grove was pushing this development. C. Barry Gwin stated that he was opposed to the annexation until an acceptable development can be designed and proposed for the property; he recommended that the Meridian downtown core be developed first; he desired that the property be developed residentially. d. Elizabeth Gwin stated that she opposed the development and that she wanted the City to police development and make sure that they put in what they stated they were putting in; she subsequently stated that Mr Allen's other developments are not as rosy as he would have you believe. e. Terry McCarthy stated that the City does not have the manpower to police subdivisions; he objected to the Idaho Athletic Club and what it has resulted in; he subsequently stated that if the property was developed more than two blocks deep that was more than necessary to keep Fairview the same as developed from Boise to Meridian. f. Beverly Donahue stated that there would be automobile headlights shining into the homes on the west side of Locust Grove Road at all hours of the night; she also had concern over the entrances and exits from the shopping center. g. Debbie Woodall stated that she had addressed this development during the hearings on the comprehensive plan; that she was concerned with the traffic that would be generated; she also stated that she wondered about enforcement of subdivision requirements. h. J. Clouss stated that he was against commercial zoning; that the South Shore development mentioned had a large buffer area but this one did not; that he was opposed to this development. i. Karen Blayney stated that she was opposed to the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 9 9 development; that she desired berming so that she does not look onto storage; that she does not want to pay for water for taking care of landscaping; that she is concerned about the traffic. j. Susan Janson stated that she wondered whether other developers had come forward with similar proposals and whether this was the best location for this type of development; that if it was not good for the neighbors then it was not good. k. Don Bryan stated that he was not taking sides at this time; that he wants his irrigation water continued to be delivered and the ditch tiled; that he had concerns over access to the ditch; that he was very concerned over the elevation of the land because his land may become too low. M. Fern VanPaepaghem stated she was against the commercial development; that the developer had shown very little concern about the west side of Locust Grove Road and that she was concerned how she would get out of her subdivision with all the traffic; she also stated that she desired the property be adequately bermed and screened. 12. The City received, prior to the January 11, 1994, hearing, letters from the following people with the following comments: a. Carolyn J. Haynes stated that she was very much opposed to the application; that it would only increase traffic on N. Locust Grove Road which was already heavily traveled. b. Elizabeth A. Gwin stated that she protested the annexation and rezoning of the 40.45 acres; that she was against anymore annexations until the City has a full time department for inspection; that the area along N. Locust Grove was starting to look terribly shabby; that the proposed project would only bring minimum wage jobs; and that the City should not expect adjacent neighbors to allow this development at the loss of about six percent of the property value. C. Oskar Casey stated that he was a renter of Stor-It Rental Storage in Boise and he voiced approval of the storage to be placed on the property. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 0 • d. Lisa M. Waller stated that she was a renter of Stor-It Rental Storage in Boise and she voiced approval of the storage to be placed on the property. e. That various letters were received as part of the Comprehensive Plan hearings which stated objection to the development of the proposed land for commercial purposes; that the individual letters are noted but they will not be individually addressed in these Findings since they were not presented specifically as part of this application. f. That there were letters received after the hearing held on January 11, 1994, and they will not be spoken to or noted since they were received after the hearing closed. 13. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments; that those comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 14. The City Planner, Wayne Forrey, commented that the annexation and land use request of C -G complies with the current Comprehensive Plan with the exception of a neighborhood park and the updated landscape/screening and development review standards which apply to this area of the City; that this site is adjacent to residential subdivisions and pedestrian access must be provided for interconnection; that an acceptable pathway/pedestrian access concept design plan must be submitted to the City and to ACHD prior to final annexation approval; the Comprehensive Plan indicates a need for a neighborhood park site in this area; that the Applicant must specify types of anticipated transitional uses for City analysis; that ACHD has requested a traffic study to be included in the development agreement or conditional use permit conditions FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 pertaining to the shopping center component of the project; that the Applicant needs to submit detailed rental storage site development plans; that a variance would be required for a security guard dwelling residence; that as a condition of annexation approval, a development agreement addressing subdivision access, linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services, must be entered into prior to annexation approval; that the project will be subject to a development review and Zoning Administrator and Buildings inspector checklists. 15. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 16. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 17. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 18. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW page 9 0 0 increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots and other uses. 20. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interest and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existing residential area, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land use and design within the development, and with contiguous developments; and encourage innovations in building techniques,, so that the growing demands of the community are met, while at the same time providing for the efficient use of such lands. B. Under LAND USE 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21 Commercial and retail area are established along major arterials, (East First Street, Cherry Lane, FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 E 9 Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads) and include small commercial center and individual businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufacturing. 2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22 The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Strip commercial and strip industrial. b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread). COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25 a. Community Shopping Center - As a retail commercial enterprise, it is designed to serve a multi -neighborhood area and can be both complimentary to and competitive with a Regional Shopping Center. b. In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity Centers should be guided by performance and developments standards. These standards consider, among other aspects: 1. Traffic Volume and Type 2. Trip Generation 3. Impacts on Arterial Street System 4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development 5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas 6. Accessibility of Site 7. Parking Demands 8. Pedestrian Circulation 9. Available Utility Systems 10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations) 11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses 12. Internal Circulation Design 13. Drainage c. A Community Shopping Center is defined as having between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet of gross floor area, and between eight to 30 acres of site area. COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26 a. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be encourage to locate at arterial intersection and near high -traffic intensity areas. b. 4.7U Community shopping centers must be FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 LJ 0 planned for future integration of adjoining residential uses. 5. MIXED -PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 26 Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue Plus Area North of Fairview Avenue These areas are within Ada County, but nearly surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is characterized by large rural lots, and a sparse development pattern. In order to stimulate planned development in these areas, the following policies apply: a. 5.16U All development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. b. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned and compatible land uses are desireable for this area, including low -to -high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land uses. c. 5.18U Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land use development in this area. Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. d. 5.19U A planned community shopping center is anticipated near the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42 1. Existing Conditions a. Cherry Lane/Fairview, East of Meridian Road, is listed as a principal arterial b. Locust Grove Road is listed as a Minor arterial. D. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42 1. Special Community Design Areas Goal Statement - Policies. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 0 0 a. 2.1U Require businesses and government to install and maintain landscaping. b. 2.3U Encourage the beautification of streets, parking lots, public lands and state highways. E. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Page 69 1. Entryway Corridors C. Fairview Avenue (East entrance). 2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian. 3. Policies, Page 71 a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development and encourage clustered, landscaped business development on entrance corridors. b. 4.4U Encourage 35 -foot landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 72 a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. 21. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, page 28, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development." FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 0 0 22. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided. 23. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states as follows: "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." 24. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area. 25. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C -G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 26. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 (C -G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G) district; that individual department stores, retail stores, restaurants, and storage facilities, indoors or outdoors, are allowed uses in the C -G district; that planned commercial developments, are an allowed use in the C -G district. 27. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15 28. 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. 29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 30. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 31. 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;" 32. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16 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." 33. 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 Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses. 35. .That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 17 11 part as follows: • "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." 36. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. 8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C." 37. That the Applicant submitted material on the conditional use application for storage units in the bound material which was submitted with the bound material on the annexation and zoning; that such material on the conditional use is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted no other materials on the conditional use request and did not address the conditional use for the storage at the public hearing; that as found above, the Planning Director, state that the Applicant needs to submit detailed rental storage site development plans and that a variance would be required for a security guard dwelling residence. 38. That proper notice was given as required by law and all FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 18 0 0 procedures before the Planning and Zoning 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 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 use application under Idaho Code, 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. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19 0 0 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. B. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development and this must be agreed upon in the development agreement to be entered into. 11. That this Application has been difficult for the Planning and zoning Commission to decide because of the opposition to the Application; that the Commission understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an individual basis; that the duty of ple Commission, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property owners and their concerns; that the duty of the Commission is to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the City and its citizens; in that regard, it is FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 20 0 0 specifically noted that the persons objecting were property owners relatively near the property; there were no objections from people who were not too distant from the proposed project; that the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances of the City have measures to try and insure that adjacent property owners are impacted by development as little as possible; that the property involved is at the intersection of a major and minor arterial which have been historically developed commercially; that it is with this duty and background that the Commission has undertaken to make these Findings and Conclusions. 12. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan, which controls this application, states, in the LAND USE section, under 5.19U, that a community shopping center is anticipated near the Locust Grove Road/Fairview Avenue intersection. 13. The Applicant has stated and represented that its intention is to construct and operate a community shopping center, but the Applicant has requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G), which does not allow for a community shopping center. 14. That the City only adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended its Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 21 0 0 but the Zoning Ordinance does not address provisions for the use. 15. That the Applicant and the City are therefore caught in a no-man's-land situation, i.e., the Comprehensive Plan calls for a community shopping center at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue but the Zoning Ordinance only allows for a community shopping center in the Community Business District; the Applicant has not requested his land to be zoned, Community Business District. 16. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it C -G but the Applicant could still not construct a community shopping center; however, once the property was zoned C -G, the Applicant could place many different uses on the property without additional approval from the City other than building permits, which limits the control that the City should have over the development and uses of the property due to the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan and the testimony of those objecting to the development of the property in a commercial manner. 17. That it is concluded that since the Applicant has represented in the packet of information submitted to the City that, "The City will always control the development through the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval process.", and since Kathleen Weber indicated that each and every part of the project will have to go through conditional use hearings and design review and such will be required, and since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed -Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 22 Avenue in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to insure neighborhood compatibility, that the Applicant should not be too unhappy if a means were found that would allow the development of a community shopping center that would still allow the City to have adequate control over any uses that were placed on the land; therefore if a shopping center is to be constructed in the CG zoning district, without additional applications by the Applicant and approval by the City, the development of a shopping center must be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G) district. 18. Therefore, it is concluded that if the Applicant is agreeable to developing the property with a community shopping center under the commercial planned development process, and having that as a condition of annexation and zoning, the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C -G); that it is concluded that if the Applicant is not so agreeable, the City would not have sufficient control over the property and it should not be annexed. 19. That, also as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C -G, 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, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11 - FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 23 0 0 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. 2. The concerns of the owners of property along Locust Grove of having lights, particularly automobile headlights, shine into their yards and homes. 3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by its representative during the public hearing. 4. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services. 5. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 6. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 7. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 8. Submission and approval of any required plats. 9. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the storage units. 10. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 11. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 12. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey. 13. The sewer and water requirements. 14. Submit development plans for the storage units 15. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the land and any development. 16. The annexation and zoning of the land. 17. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development. 18. Meeting the representations made as part of the application process. 19. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff. 20. That it is concluded that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of paragraph 18 and 19 are met. 21. That regarding the conditional use permit request for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 24 storage units, it is concluded that if the Applicant agrees to develop the property as a commercial planned development and enters into a development agreement, the property would then be annexed and the Applicant can pursue the development of the storage units as part of the commercial planned development. 22. That, if annexed, the requirements of the Meridian Police Department Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement. 23. That, if annexed, all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 24. That, if annexed, the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement. 25. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 26. That, if annexed, these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 27. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C- G) would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 28. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 25 property shall not be annexed. 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) RECOMMENDATION VOTED- VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED 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 under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant agree that the development of the property will be done as a commercial planned unit development and that the Applicant enter into a development agreement as outlined in the Conclusions of Law prior to annexation; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with developing the property under the commercial planned use provisions and entering into the proposed development agreement, it is recommended that the property not be annexed. MOTION: APPROVED:"""' DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 26