The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 10-11MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 13,1994: (APPROVED) TABLED AT SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MEETING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: (COMBINED WITH ITEM #2) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY JUDITH SCHANCE: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE ACCESSORY USE PERMIT) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY WEST ONE BANK: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 1994) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION BY ALLAN CHANDLER: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LIVING CENTER BY BEDELCO, INC (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) • 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION BY LAYNE OF IDAHO: (RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/ EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY DIANE AND ROBERT LANG: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JONATHAN GIBBS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR D & B SUPPLY BY NEB -i COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDMSION 5, 6 AND 7 BY B.W. INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: 11 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 13,1994: u��ry✓ezl 1. TABLED AT SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MEETING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: c,. qt y ��12"e /„ // i e/t 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY JUDITH SCHANCE: U�rOrO✓e QCGerfo r� e.re �PFnsZ" 5. FINDINGSOFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY WEST ONE BANK: a`/✓ro e �/� F c/C rvcc.w,..�..ilF.hv-�p aJr¢ci �/v G/L' 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: - aRh& 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION BY ALLAN CHANDLER: c/C lvatf aa' -A, e/c pard 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LIVING CENTER BY BEDELCO, INC.: e'ityal-fi- ,v �rie/�we F/F l e/C 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION BY LAYNE OF IDAHO: ie ccmrhe �G aPPr�(' -t L-" cle- 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNET EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: o/�y "x lk, -.e J /� elf e cle 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY DIANE AND ROBERT LANG: y lv 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JONATHAN GIBBS: c%i cfne�k 1.�relpa-=e -,,C// f'c/e' 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR D & B SUPPLY BY NEB-i COMPANY: rd, fn aAn e n ,& d Ytic � cll 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION 5, 6 AND 7 BY B.W. INC.: ��J, a1 � p l�" ell 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: 17. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: CITY OF MERIDIAN HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 r. LJ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: OCT > > 1904 CITY Gf ML;,Ab.AjN =---�---Phi---- 1� 9--------------------�_� - S 5 Cj_----------------- ---- g 13- 8' --i_ 9 _Z_< - ------ 9ek —1 Ci e,2 3 (2a L ----- ssQ zu-----------------------------------'re 7 _ b ---------------- I"t 4. JZ4 (,�k(&(U F-rziL,,_) R441 a e 0, Irl e l l o t- CITY OF MERIDIAN HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 NAME: Vl UCI 1 1 • CITY ()I= N l r r rfii i PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET PHONE NUMBER: l03 so -OA -4- S t_c�jcl� 34C4 —56s2 • • The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: TED HEPPER, CHARLIE ROUNTREE, JIM SHEARER: MEMBERS ABSENT: MOE ALIDJANI: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Roen Wilson, John Sanford, Robert Webber, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Eric Anderson, Scott Dixon, Thom and Barbara Myatt, Pat Sandford, Carl Rosson, R.W. Peckenschneider, Opal Harrington, Floyd and Kathy Reichert, Melinda Harper, C.R. and Linda Powell, Layne and Tina Merits, Dwayne Ward, Gloria and Richard Fern, Paul McKague, Douglas Mellor, Ranae Mellor, Mary Brockway, Dennis Brockway, Jon Barnes, Chris Williams, Jack Sweet, Wayne S. Forrey, Vern Alleman, Ron Thurber, Kathleen Coulter, Jim McGarvin, Dick Schraudt, Don Sweet, Steve Jensen, Scott Stewart, Ted Hutchinson, Stephanie Churchman, Gary Lee, William Ball, Burt Borrup, Don Brian, Joe Simunich, Tom Zabala, Tom Miles, Dan Torfin, Bernadine Morgan, Dennis Baker, Joe Glaiser, David Baley, Jay Jones, Kim Daniel: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 13,1994: Johnson: Are there any correction, additions or deletions to these minutes? Rountree: I have a spelling correction on Page 11, second to the last line, last word, creative spelling of pneumatic, other than that. Johnson: Any other corrections or deletions or additions, if not I will entertain a motion please. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written with the one correction, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED AT SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MEETING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: Is there a representative that would like to come forward and address the Commission at this time, please do so. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 2 Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, at your last meeting when this application was heard the Commission members wanted to see a preliminary design for what we have proposed as far as the development on the Brown property. We have put together a preliminary sketch which includes, this is the Brown property right here. I believe our client is also in the process of negotiating with Mr. Reichert for picking up the additional parcel right here. So we are planning for this entire parcel. Mr. Borrup who also testified at the last meeting, his property is right here, it comes down and then abuts the Packard property which is coming before you tonight. But we are proposing this as a preliminary layout. We will do this in phases because of the access issues that are involved. The Highway District has a limitation of up to 40 units if it is only going to have one access, and presently the only access we have availability to is this one out of Chamberlain Estates. If Packard is approved it would provide an access to the south. We are providing for stub streets to future developments to the east. Also, recognizing Mr. Alleman's requirements and agreement that we provide sewer or so that we can access sewer along the north slough we are also providing a future stub to the west which would also enter Chamberlain Estates at this point. We are also providing for the possibility of a stub street directly north to Ustick Road. When we submit this it would be for a preliminary plat, we have a few things to work out yet in regard to this particular plat, but then it will be submitted to you in that form. Are there any questions from the Commission? Hepper: Where is the end of Wingate Lane? Hutchinson: Wingate Lane is a series of easements which goes from Ustick Road and it also provides service to Sharp's down on the south end. It is our proposal that our part of the property would develop on our part of the easement at this point. There is a 15 foot easement, the Borup's, Reichert's and Sharp's would all have access to public streets through this development so technically it would be shutting off of Wingate at that point. Hepper: (Inaudible) Hutchinson: In taking into consideration those persons who commented last time we don't want any access to that. If those people who are involved with the easement are agreeable and we are providing public street access then it would be our preference to shut it off. Hepper: Have you contacted any of those people to see if they are agreeable to that? Hutchinson: We haven't yet, we are still in the preliminary stage, but recognizing those folks who want no access we are trying to work that out the best we can. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 3 Hepper: (Inaudible) Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Hutchinson? Thank you. What is your pleasure? Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Hepper: Second Johnson: 1 have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: Johnson: Is there any discussion regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? I will entertain a motion. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Happier - Yea, Rountree - Did not Vote, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent, Johnson - Yea (tie breaker) MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there any recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council that the rezone and conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application be approved 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 and the Uniform Building Code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian including all parking areas Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 4 shall be paved and the fence ordinance shall be met. The conditional use permit shall be subject to annual periodic review upon motion by the City and all children should be dropped off and picked up from the parking area of the property. The play area for the children must be fenced at a high preventing any children entering (inaudible). Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: COMBINED WITH ITEM #2: ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY JUDITH SCHANCE: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Hepper: I have a question on page 2, item #9, it states that the hours of operation will be from 6 A.M. from 5 P.M. 1 think that needs to be to 6 P.M. to give people a chance to get off work and enough time to pick up their children. Johnson: What did the testimony say, does anyone recall? Rountree: My recollection is until 5 o'clock. Hepper: (Inaudible) Johnson: Any other discussion? A motion for approval then. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions with the stipulation that the 5 P.M. time be changed to 6 P.M. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared with the one change, altering #9 on page 2 to 6 P.M., roll call vote. 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 5 ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation to the City Council? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby approves the accessory 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 which specifically include the requirements and conditions sited in the conclusions of law #5, 6 and 9 set forth above and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes and uniform building code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to annual review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve a favorable recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY WEST ONE BANK: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: A recommendation to the City Council. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 6 Rountree: 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. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, we have a couple typos on this on page 4, item #10, the second word should say the (inaudible) should be that many of the blocks on Cherry Lane Village. There is another one just 2 lines above that on item #9, it should be that he had no comments. We have one other one back here on the last page on page 10, halfway through item 9, the Commission hereby finds and concludes that it does not have sufficient, it should have the word have. That is it. Johnson: Any further discussion? We need a motion then please. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that the matter should be tabled until additional information as noted in the findings and conclusions of law is provided by the applicant to the Commission and other information requested by the Commission and City staff. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that this item be tabled in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: We have to vote on the findings, roll call vote. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 7 ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION BY ALLAN CHANDLER: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? Hepper: There is another typo on page 2 and item #3, the fourth line down where it says the sewer and water will come from Locust Grove Road it says seep enough it should say deep enough to go under the Nine Mile Drain. Johnson: Any further discussion? We need a motion. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property be annexed and zoned as requested and the applicant meets the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically including the adoption of a homeowners association with mandatory dues, that the applicant and owner are specifically required to tile all ditches and canals, waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as condition of the annexation. And that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement and that if the conditions are not met that the property not be annexed or if these conditions are not met that the land be de -annexed that no annexation ordinance shall be prepared or adopted until the applicant submits a 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 8 development agreement referenced above. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass the decision on as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat to the City Council. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LIVING CENTER BY BEDELCO, INC.: Johnson: I will now open a public hearing, if there is a representative for the applicant or the applicant will you please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission I am here tonight representing Bedelco and helping them develop a quality business park and affordable housing project in Meridian, which is just absolutely essential to the community. I have some handouts that I would like to give to each of the Commission members and then I will be going through a concise slide presentation. The public will see the same material 1 will have it on the slides. Let me give you first a little background of Bedelco. The business is owned by Burt Smith and Ed Bews, they like to be referred to as Ed and Burt. They have done developing for well over 30 years in the treasure valley. Burt is a native of Council and Ed grew up in Eagle, their first project was down along Boise State University. The homes that they built about 35 years ago are now being purchased or tom down for expansion of BSU. They have built probably close to a 4th of the homes in the Boise area in that 35 years of building and developing, a lot of it themselves. They have been in the area for a long time and are committed to good projects, the built the Meridian Manor project here in Meridian several years ago. The history on this site, they have 41 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 9 owned it about 17 years and in 1979 this 55 acre parcel was annexed into the City of Meridian as industrial. In 1979 there was general feeling that property that was large next to a railroad would be very good for industrial development. And ever since 1979 they have been trying to sell that property in parcels, large parcels, thinking that was appropriate. But the market has changed and Ed and Tom Wright are the co-owners of the Treasure Valley Business Park which is at Eagle Road and Fairview. They are dealing on a daily basis with businesses trying to get in to buy that ground or come into Meridian. What they are hearing is that there are more and more requests for small business lots, not the big parcels. Railroad is not as critical as it was thought to be in the late 79s and even in the mid 80's. So, we set out to identify what would be good community development for this ground given that there has been a change in the housing market, there has been a change in the business and industrial market. Given that Meridian wants to develop this property with some economic uses, all of that went into some thinking so we set out to research what would be appropriate for this site. I want to walk you through some of our thoughts and our research and our findings and some of the ideas that helped shape this project. (Slide Presentation) I am standing taking a picture here at the railroad tracks at Locust Grove Road looking north and west. The background with that nice fence is the Maws Addition subdivision and all of this plowed ground in the foreground of the picture is the Bedelco property. This is looking a little more west, the trees there are part of Old Town that have crept out to, this actually was the old Schneider Farm that Ed and Burt bought from them about 17 years ago. Some of you might recognize the outbuilding there and the hay and trees and the silo, the trees would stay in this project but those other structures would come down. That is all on the Bedelco property but just north of that haystack is the Collins property, Mr. and Mrs. Collins own this property. You will notice on the plat, the plat goes around that property, this is not part of the project. Old Town is creeping right up to the edge of the Bedelco property, this is Idaho Street looking west or East towards Bedelco. That is another thing we considered was the arrangement of streets, given Old Town and the grid pattern in this part of the City. And out along Pine and I am looking East about where that truck is that you see is where the Bedelco property starts so on the west edge of Bedelco is some very good affordable housing and we took that into consideration what type of housing is in the area, what type of buffers would be necessary, what type of business lots would be needed to meet the market demand. We looked at the permitted uses that are allowed today in the industrial zone I met with property owners out there. We discussed some of these things and a lot of folks out there said we would prefer not to have some of those uses on that property, particularly those in the Maws Subdivision are concerned about what might develop across the street. So we took that into consideration, we did a quality of life survey and the number 1 response that we got when we asked people to define what is quality of life in Meridian was jobs. The second thing was housing, and the third was safety. So we factored that into this project as well. We spent a lot of time looking at Boise because Boise is blessed with a lot of small business and Meridian is trying to do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 10 the same thing and establish identity and attract business. And Tim Hogland the Building official in Boise says we just can't compete with Meridian on price. This property has been in ownership now for 17 years, so there is a wonderful opportunity for Bedelco because they have owned this so long. Here is a project where the affordability is a real factor both on the business lots and on the affordable house lots. So we can compete against Boise or Nampa in Canyon County. We looked at your Comprehensive Plan, and there are a lot of goals and policies that have shaped this project. The housing goal is about quality and affordable housing in all neighborhoods. Balanced land uses, recognizing that housing is a critical component of economic development. Even economic development policies about helping small businesses expand and also identifying and removing constraints to small business development and we did identify one and I will talk about that. Other goals talk about having housing for all income groups in the community, all neighborhoods and having housing next to employment centers. This is one of the things that we quickly realize would not work here. This was an article in the Statesman recently about why we build the way we do, the large homes and the 2 income families, the R-4 type development that occurs in Meridian. There is quite an inventory out there of R-4 subdivisions and lots and homes, but our research confirms what we have been reading in the paper and that is the senior citizens are not being addressed, their housing needs are not being addressed. And start up families, newlyweds, young families, there is a tremendous need in Meridian for affordable housing. That led us to this layout right here. Now, one of the things that we identified in our analysis was that business needed small lots, in our initial layout of this subdivision we had 50 foot wide business lots fronting on Locust Grove. We did that because in Boise today a small business person can get on Executive Drive which is an extension of Pine Street and buy a 50 foot wide business lot. They are just stacked right next to each other, unlimited access to Executive Drive. We wanted to have Meridian on the same playing field and keep it level as with Boise. When we approached the Highway District they said we can understand that small business needs access and they want their own frontage on an arterial but we have changed our policy. And what was developed in Boise maybe a month ago we have a new standard now. We made a change and you will notice the change here, there are now proposed 7 clustered combined access points. We are still working with the Highway District we are going to approach the Commissioners, some of the staff feel that even these access points are too close to the intersection of Locust Grove and Pine, but that design that you see there has been approved and is developing right now in the City of Boise. So we want to make sure that Meridian is as competitive in economic development as Boise is. So small business has an equal opportunity to choose. One thing Meridian has over Boise is the lower land cost and the affordable housing. The business people we spoke to said we have to have in order to track employees we have to have affordable housing. There are a lot of folks moving to Canyon County because of the affordable housing and their good economic developing program over there. And this is a project we want to capture and not have people going to Canyon County and want them to come to Meridian and start their Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 11 business here and have affordable housing for employees. We extended Locust Grove Road through the project at the request of the Highway District, we have a small park that is based on the Comprehensive Plan standard of 5 acres per 1000 population. We also have a lot of screening and buffering and half the project is in affordable housing and half remains in industrial. The large parcel here on the east side of Locust Grove is owned by Bedelco, but Meridian Energy has an option a current option that has not expired and if it does expire and Meridian Energy does not buy that ground Ed and Burt will be right back in wanting to subdivide that big piece into small lots again to meet that market. But with that active option they have to see what Meridian Energy does. Okay, in terms of land use intensity that entire site is zoned industrial, it is recognized the most intense land use, we actually want to take half of that property and put it into a lower intense, the single family detached, that is a plus for the neighborhood. We are doing that partly because of affordable housing need but also because of compatibility with that neighborhood that area. There has to be a buffer in that area between Industrial and residential, this is a project that will do that. Now, manufactured housing and that is the focus here of the affordable housing, in our application we indicated that A - a home could be purchased in that subdivision between $73,000 to $77,000 and that is a good price. A lot of folks need housing at that level. This happens to be out on the freeway by the Meridian Interchange, some of you might recognize the dealership out there. This is just one of the homes, a typical type home that would come into the project. However this home does not have a garage and there will be a double car garage constructed in every one of these lots. These homes, some of them are very nice, they have bay windows, they have some inset entrances, corners can very attractive, these again are all out on the freeway. A lot of them already have a door ready to attach a garage. This is a home directly across the street from Bedelco on Pine, it is a very nice looking home, it is affordable. It has a detached garage and so in this project there may be detached garages and they may be attached depending on the builder and the homeowner what they want to do. Here is an example just right acorss the street of a nice affordable home and a detached garage. They will be on foundations, no question, it will be a foundation in fact this is a manufactured home and the foundation was just completed and I snapped a photo of it. These homes use less electricity which is a plus. It is a little hard to see with the lights on, but this is Weathervane Village in Meridian at the opposite end of Pine by Pine and Linder by the High school. This is, a portion of this project is manufactured housing, in that photo was a young family with a child in the stroller and in this one is an elderly lady. I spoke to her, she just sold that home for $70,000, she has a grandson or nephew there visiting, but from her house this is the neighbors to the north, manufactured homes look very nice, and the street section here is the same that Bedelco will develop, 50 foot right of way, 5 foot sidewalks with curb and gutter. Across the street in that culdesac in Weathervane Village this is what you see, there are 3 manufactured homes. This in on the corner of Idaho and NW 15th, that is a manufactured home with a carport. There will not be any carports in this project, they will all be enclosed garages. And then as you come farther 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 12 into the project, here we are at Broadway and 15th, that is a stick built home and you see the fellow sweeping his driveway right above that red for sale sign, I spoke to him. He is in a stick built home but the next ones to him are manufactured, they are very happy, they get along well to the 2 types of housing. The manufactured housing tends to have an older resident about 70% of the occupants are elderly, 30% are newlyweds or young families or small families. Now this is a project by Boise, by Borah High School, we will not develop like this, 1 am showing this as an example. This project has setbacks of about 10 feet and no sidewalks, it is a very narrow street and we will not do that. We will have a setback typical of Maws Addition or any other subdivision in Meridian, but look at the homes, these are the types of homes that would be in the Bedelco project that is a modular home and it is very attractive. Another one there landscaped, some of these homes have come from Treasure Valley Homes which is a very good dealer in Garden City, they sell a lot of units and do a good job setting them up. Here again is another look at some manufactured homes. And that looks like a regular stick built, it is a very nice type of housing. Alright, some of the features, we have a storage area that would be operated and maintained by the homeowners association and that is to prevent like the old car here that is sitting off the driveway on the grass. It is always fun to fix up an old car but in order to have a good quality project if we are going to provide space for trailers or old cars and this happens to be an RV parking spot at that project by Borah High School. I can't say this one would look exactly like that we anticipate actually more landscaping, but it would be fenced and screened and look nice like that. We also propose that park, when I met with neighbors they asked that instead of a formal park that it be left natural, Five Mile Creek is right there and it is a nice area for wildlife and there is wildlife there now today. And we do anticipate about 70% of the occupants to be senior citizens and we think that might be a good thing to do is have a passive type private park there. That leads us to the layout, everything we have looked at and analyzed is come into this layout and we recognize it can get better, I hope tonight we will have some citizen comments and ideas. We are open to suggestions. In summary I would ask that you would approve or recommend approval of this project and not table it. We need to keep working with the Highway District, I would prefer personally that Idaho Street go west, but when I met with property owners they asked that Idaho Street not be extended. That is the Planning and Zoning and City Council's call or the Highway District will do whatever in that regard. I would ask also that you recognize that small business needs to have a small lot. Subsidiaries of Micron and HP can afford bid parcels but small business can't, they need small lots and they need access. We can accommodate with combined access. We want to be as competitive as Boise is, and 1 would also ask that you add 3 conditions, 1 that there be a development agreement, that is very appropriate here. Secondly that this project would be subject to a development review and the third that you would require a development compliance report. That is a report that 1 prepared on other projects for the Meridian City Council and it would avoid the type of problem that occurred in Maws Addition when a fence was built instead of a berm. We will make sure that everything gets Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 13 done correctly with those conditions. I would be happy to answer questions. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Forrey? Hepper: Would those industrial lots along Locust Grove and Pine Street those would industrial rather than commercial? Forrey: Yes, the zoning would not change, they are zoned industrial now and they would stay industrial. Hepper: Do you anticipate any conflict there between industrial uses 24 hours a day manufacturing noise, vibration, light, sound and all of that with a residential on the other side of the fence? Forrey: The types of, an alternative would be to zone it commercial, but that is really not what the market is saying is needed. The types of businesses that have approached Bedelco and Tom Wright in the Treasure Valley Business Park are really kind of small manufacturing primarily indoors service businesses that want to put up a small building on a smaller business lot so it is, we don't envision the heavy manufacturing or heavy all night manufacturing uses at all. I hope that answers your question. Hepper: That is one of them, you also have an R-15 zoning designation on that subdivision, with the 65 foot lots why do you have R-15 instead of R-8? Forrey: There are some 60 foot wide lots and we went to each of the mobile home manufacturers, the dealers and one manufacturer in Fruitland or Payette and they say that a 60 by 90 lot is workable for a majority of their models. And a 60 by 90 lot is not allowed in the R-8 zone but it is in the R-15 that is why. Most of them are 65 by 100 but there are some 60 by 90's. Hepper: What would be the minimum house size? Forrey: I think it is in our application at 900 square feet in addition a 2 car garage. Hepper: That is all I have. Rountree: Would you point out all 28 of the proposed industrial lots? Forrey: Actually it is 13, with commenting from ACHD, let me point to them. The question was to point out the industrial lots, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, this would remain zoned industrial as well. This is the property that Meridian Energy has under option. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 14 Rountree: I asked that because the application identifies 28 business lots. Forrey: It was 28 to start with and then the Highway District asked us to consider a little larger lot with combined access, that is how it got to 13. Rountree: Would Locust Grove be extended south? Forrey: Well, it would be extended by Bedelco to the property line there next to the railroad tracks. (End of Tape) Rountree: What is happening in the northwest corner there, we have a peachy color on this. Forrey: Yes, that is an easement area, those 3 affected lots are very deep and that is because there is quite a bit of irrigation stuff in there. There is diversion Rountree: This is a diversion easement? Forrey: Yes, that is not included as part of the building lot size that is why those lots are big. Rountree: You indicated in the proposed park area that it would be passive recreation and relatively undeveloped, would you be putting in walking paths to accommodate to that type of use? Forrey: Yes, 2, it doesn't show up well on here, let me point them out. Actually 3 paths, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates Five Mile Creek as a area for developed pathway. So there will be a section of pathway developed here along the creek, there will be a section of pathway developed here along Five Mile Creek, there will be a parking lot developed here with a sidewalk that leads from the parking lot over to the pathway and the Ada County Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Nampa Comprehensive Plan and the Boise Comprehensive Plan all identify a pathway along the railroad tracks from Nampa to Boise. And so that pathway would connect into that and if the City of Meridian and Ada County want the pathway developed Bedelco is prepared to develop that much of the pathway along the railroad. Rountree: Thanks Wayne. Johnson: Any further questions Charlie? Rountree: I would just ask if you have seen the comments from the City Engineer or the 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 15 City Planning Director? Forrey: Yes Rountree: Do you have any problems with those? Forrey: No, except for the comment on tabling. 1 hope we can keep working on it and make it better. Rountree: That is all I have. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you Wayne, we will give you an opportunity to testify if we get some opposition. This is a public hearing, anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission? Paul McKague, 933 East Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney. McKague: See that Five Mile Creek that comes around there on the outside of the property line there that is my property. I donT want people walking into this walkway or whatever he has proposed there coming into my property. There is also a ditch that runs along that fence line right there that belongs to Nampa Meridian that is on my property but it is about 3 feet deep that is not going to be good for children to be around. That is about all I have, I am opposed to anything that is going to bring people onto my property there. The Five Mile Creek (inaudible) is on my property up where you see it straightens out there and it goes on up to Pine. It is maybe 100 feet there that is not on my property. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. McKague? Hepper: Is that ditch that you mentioned is that on your property? McKague: It is on my property, it belongs to Nampa Meridian but it is an open ditch. It runs right down that yellow line right there. Hepper: Is it right on the property line or is it inside? McKague: It is inside on my side. It is not my ditch but it is still an open ditch. Johnson: Thanks Paul, anyone else from the public? Melinda Harper, 1004 N. Scrivner Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 16 Harper: I am a resident of Maws Addition Subdivision and I worked closely with Mr. Forrey with our fiasco in the fence. I trust that Mr. Forrey is very sincere in his opinion of this upcoming development. Of course living across the street and somewhat behind ideally nothing would ever develop there and it would be open, but reality is that progress is coming and any open field you see pretty soon will be developed it looks to be that way. I do sincerely hope that when it comes to any sort of screening between their property and where Maws begins that there will be some sort of screen to at least provide a visual as well as a sound barrier. I just trust that it will be done and not overlooked as with ours which became, it was a very difficult situation for everyone involved. It was very painful, it was very long. I hope that the vegetation will provide some sort of barrier for us, I am concerned I hope that there will be sewer, gutter, sidewalk, and the traffic is a concern for me. I don't' know whether or not there will be some sort of stop sign but we do have children who do play there and so I am concerned for safety for those involved. There is also a walking group within the subdivision, we do like to walk and as it is getting darker, another thing also is lighting I hope that whatever lighting is provided there it is not offensive to the residents who do live there. I also do realize that the City does need to have an additional income, there have been many plans for this property in the area and it has been consistently shot down which has harmed the City of Meridian and residents because we do as people who live here we do rely on taxes. I am excited for it I hope it goes off well but I am also hoping that our needs are met as well. Thank you Johnson: Anyone else from the public? Opal Farrington, live across the street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Farrington: I am opposed to it very much because we have enough houses down there as it is. I would rather have industrial or commercial because the schools are all so crowded they are right now having to bus a lot of them over to Lake Hazel. They don't have room for them here in Meridian. And then besides when they develop I had one right west of me and one east of me and they don't take care of their trash. We couldn't irrigate at all, they don't come and pick it up, the wind blows it every place. I don't know (inaudible) and we never got to irrigate last (Inaudible) and had the cops call the developer and he wouldn't do anything about it. So, I think they should be taking care of all of their trash and stuff that blows around. And then the traffic is real bad out there too, the streets are narrow and there is lots of traffic by both developers there. So, I don't think we need any more development. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Stephanie Churchman, Builders Masonry Products, 1400 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 17 Churchman: We are adjacent to the property, we are separated by the tracks and we are an industrial property. It is Builders Masonry Products and 1 would just like to read a statement from our company. Builders Masonry Products is always enthusiastic to see development and new growth in the economy. However, we feel there are some very real problems with rezoning an industrial property to a residential development. It will not only be hazardous for us, but for the city and potential residents. As we have seen documented nationally, when residential developments are constructed in an area originally zoned for industrial use, there begins to be restrictions on the business. The noise levels of the plant could be a problem for residents, putting our manufacturing plant at a disadvantage due to time restrictions on production. With new neighborhoods, the number of children will increase. This poses two potential problems. One is for the safety of the children who may wander onto our property. The second is the potential problem of more property damage and vandalism to our facility. For the reasons described above, Builders Masonry Products position is to oppose the rezoning of this property for residential purposes and to maintain this area as it was originally zoned. Basically what we are saying is what you brought up that we have seen over and over again that when you have residential housing come near a plant such as ours it is very disturbing to the residents. Pretty soon we can only start up our trucks or only run our plant from 8 in the morning until 5 or 6 at night. Currently we have been running 10 hour days and in the summer we were so busy that we almost had to go into night shift. That is our main concern as well as the safety, as the other owner said the children. There are many hazards there and that is our position. Johnson: Thank you very much, do you have a copy of that statement for the record, thank you. Rountree: Would you point out your location just for clarification? Churchman: (Inaudible) Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission now? Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: Well, I am not directly affected by this project but that doesn't seem to be the issue here in Meridian anymore anyway. If anybody has ever lived in a residential house by an industrial area they will vote no (inaudible). While it is not here it does cause problems because we have seen it, the areas move in like the airport, they know the airport is there they move there and then there are problems. And they have done that with every business and I would like to see at least a little foresight instead of hindsight, thank you. 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 18 Johnson: Is there anyone else? Dwanye Ward, 4389 South Carbine, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ward: I do represent Treasure Valley Homes which is a manufactured home dealership as well as Garden Village which is in Nampa which is a division of Treasure Valley Homes. We have an environmental setting at Garden Village which would give those who have maybe some questions of how a house might look, a manufactured house might look on a developed lot. We of course are much in favor of manufactured housing being placed in residential neighborhoods and on property that can be purchased by the same individual who has purchasing the home that they choose to live in. There has been some concern, I have heard some concern about children, yes in all likely hood there will be some children involved. My experience is in the last 7 or 8 years is that predominantly people who are looking for individual lots somewhat similar to your Weathervane Village area that is in Meridian are people that are empty nesters, getting ready to retire that type of thing. Looking for a reason or a way to cut their housing cost once their incomes become fixed. My guess is and I have no idea depending on what kind of amenities and what kind of CC&R's are set up by the developer, that at least 60 to maybe greater than 60% of the residents there will be retired and or semi -retired. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Would you like an opportunity to comment Wayne on any of those subjects brought up by the people testifying? Forrey: I would like to say thank you, 1 wrote down we have to be sensitive to Mr. McKague and keep people off his property somehow. Good lighting was brought up my Melinda Harper that is an excellent suggestion and those that walk in the safety. The trash and the screening, Mrs. Farrington. We need to talk to Builders Masonry to see if there is a way we can work something there to help their business expand and grow. I wrote here that a little more foresight with Mrs. Sharp and so 1 would like to meet with her and see if what we can do to make this an even better project. I would thank you and I have some good ideas and we would like to keep moving forward and make it better. That is it. Johnson: Anyone else want one last shot? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure gentlemen? Rountree: Mr. Chairman 1 move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney. Hepper: Second 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 19 Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION BY LAYNE OF IDAHO: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for Layne Industrial Park that would like to address the Commission at this time. Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: The request before you this evening is preliminary plat approval for a project known as Layne Industrial Park Subdivision. This particular project is located on Locust Grove Road about a 1/4 north of Franklin Road. It is just adjacent to the railroad tracks and situated north of Locust Grove Industrial Park as it is today. The project consists of 18 industrial building lots on about 30 acres with a density of about 1.7 lots per acre. The current zoning here is I -L which is Light Industrial zone. The minimum building lot size shown on the preliminary plat is about 40,000 square feet, 200 by 200 squares is the smallest lot. The structures and the uses on these planned industrial lots will comply with the existing I -L zoning in the City of Meridian ordinances and will comply will all the requirements for the code. There will be either a landscaped drainage lot as shown on the preliminary plat or a public right of way disposal system for the storm drain systems. If there is a common lot required and this will be determined at final design stage. A business owners association will be formed to maintain those lots. The project has direct access to Locust Grove Road, there are 2 stub streets planned to the north property line for future expansion. As I mentioned earlier the project is adjoining existing railroad right of way along its entire southern boundary. All the streets within the development will comply with ACHD standards with the exception of sidewalks. And there will be a variance request forthcoming for Council consideration at a later date. Sewer and water on this development will be extensions of existing City services which are adjacent to the project. Any irrigation ditches that are required to remain in service will be tiled. Pressure irrigation is not planned at this time for this development and a variance will be requested at the Council level. I had a chance to review the responses by City staff, from Shari Stiles the Planning director we concur with her responses with the exception of the irrigation and sidewalks which I mentioned we will be applying for the variance. And we will also sit down with Ms. Stiles and discuss the pathway requirements as the Comprehensive Plan addresses. I looked at Gary Smith's comments the City Engineer and concur with his conclusions with the exception of item 16 and 17. The Ada County Highway District has reviewed the preliminary plat and during that course of review they saw no reason for 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 20 extension of spruce tree to the south boundary. In their planning there is no need for an additional railroad crossing at that point. And we also discussed the existing private street which lies to the east of this properly and ACHD had some recommendations on how that intersection could be reconfigured to make it a better situation and we will comply with the highway district requirements, I would be glad to answer any questions. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Rountree: What is the setback from centerline of Locust Grove Road, for right of way? It doesn't show it. Lee: It is currently, the right of way is situated 50 feet on adjoining properties. ACHD has requested an additional 10 feet from what is shown on the preliminary plat, so the right of way there will be 60 feet total width. The reason for that is they have some long range plans to realign Locust Grove to the West and install a new railroad crossing and eventually this particular crossing will be abandoned so they saw no need to have any wider right of way through there. Johnson: Any further questions? This is a public hearing, anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is a preliminary plat. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: Is a representative for the applicant, would you please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. This is an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 21 those will be common open space lots or landscape areas. The site is located north of the Capital Christian Center which is on Fairview Avenue also north of Dove Meadows Subdivision. We are west of the Kearney Subdivision and south of Carol Subdivision, we are approximately 1/4 mile in from Eagle Road and 1/4 mile north of Fairview Avenue. The site is not presently located in the city limits therefore the annexation request, the city limits does abut the southern and western sites of this particular site. We are asking for an R-4 zoning designation for this site which is a low density residential district. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan has identified this site as a mixed use or planned development area for approximately half of it. That would be the southern half, with the north half designated residential development. We are proposing simply to develop this entire parcel with single family development. Lots within the development will meet or exceed the zoning ordinance standard for R-4 development and we are including a 4.95 acres of common open space which is principally about 4 and 3/4 acres of park land which is interconnected with some open space. On the east and west ends as well as interconnecting for ease of access into the park area for the lots of the development. The area surrounding this site contains a mix of uses, however primarily it is residential use that is in transition from agricultural use. The Capital Christian Center as I have indicated is south of this site and Dove Meadows Subdivision, Wingate Place, Kearney Subdivision and CaroPs Subdivision also adjacent to those site. Most of these have developed at R-8 or R -t residential development standards. The agricultural land remains as relatively large parcels, we are proposing that a homeowners association will maintain the common areas between this development. The park is designed for the ready access of the residents of development, we are proposing fences along the perimeter which will provide a buffer from the adjoining land uses. We will also use a pressurized irrigation system as required by the zoning ordinance. The lots in Carol subdivision which is to the north, this area up here, these are acre lots and as we laid this out we tried to take into consideration those larger lots. So we have got several, these are little over 13,000 square foot lots, there are 4 of them which lie adjacent to Carol subdivision. We tried to place those so that the residences that are on those lots will be adjacent to larger lots. As I stated about or little over 13,000 square feet so that there is some transition for the smaller urban sized lots to what are called estate lots in the county. There is also a ditch along in here, it is our understanding that will need to be covered or fenced which provides additional buffering between the uses their. We have tried to comply with all of the provisions of the zoning ordinance especially the design and dimensional standards for the R-4 zone. The minimum lot size in this development is 8,000 square feet, the minimum dwelling size excluding the garage will be 1400 square feet. Streets are designed for interconnection with adjacent land without providing a high speed pass through traffic routes. As we laid this out we had several conversations with the Ada County Highway District. 'Their chief concern was the location for stub streets, this stub street is located in this position based on a highway district requirement, they wanted that north of the center of the parcel. This is a large, agricultural parcel with a great deal of frontage along Eagle Road as it extends clear to the comer at Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 22 location for stub streets, this stub street is located in this position based on a highway district requirement, they wanted that north of the center of the parcel. This is a large, agricultural parcel with a great deal of frontage along Eagle Road as it extends clear to the corner at Eagle and Fairview. So we are going to be providing the stub street to that parcel in the event that it will develop probably at a more intense use than the residential that we are proposing. Again we didn't want any the ability for any traffic to use this a high speed cut through for when this develops or to get out to Fairview avenue or to the north, they have to make several turns before they can pass through this development. The streets will be built to Ada County Highway District standards, one of the comments in your packet is that the Highway District has requested that this be tabled pending a traffic study. That traffic study is under way, our traffic engineer has indicated he is very close to completing that particular study and the results should be available before this goes to the City Council. Due to the lack of intersecting streets from the exterior of this site some of the blocks particularly the block along the South and along the east and again along the north are longer than those recommended by the zoning ordinance. We have in order to provide continuity to the pathway system in the park, this c uldesac is also a little bit longer than that is recommended by the zoning ordinance. Due to the constraints that are based in the parcel, based on the exterior of the parcel and our attempt to provide some functional open space within this development we would ask that the commission waive the maximum block length standard and the culdesac provision for this particular development. Our proposal is offering the unique feature which is a very large park space, the park is to be used for the enjoyment of the residents of the development. The park is accessible from all parts of the subdivision. This will be a quality development that will enhance the area. The Packard Subdivision includes several larger lots adjoining Carol subdivision to provide a buffer against those larger lots. In summary we are seeking approval of the annexation and zoning of this 39 acre parcel with a concurrent zone of R4 and approval of the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision. There 136 lots, however 128 of those would be for residential development. Due to the location of the sewer system that exists now, we will have to work out the provision of a temporary lift station to sewer this particular project. that would connect back out into the I believe into Dove Meadows Development. However we are as you are aware from the earlier application with the Brown property and the ability to sewer that along the north slough as this area develops there will be the ability to eventually connect this development with the north slough sewer thus eliminating the need for a lift station and we are hoping that all of that will fall into place in a good order. Keeping the necessity of a lift station at a very temporary basis. We have reviewed the comments from the City Engineer and from your Planning staff. We believe that we can comply with all of those requirements. We have what we believe to be a quality project here and offering some much needed open space. I believe this would exceed the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for park space given the size of the park and the size of development. We therefore ask that you recommend approval of this application to City Council. Are there any questions from the Commission? 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 23 Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Hutchinson? Rountree: What was the projected time line on the traffic study completion? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, I believe it should be less than 2 weeks to its completion. Rountree: And that would be troth submitted to ACHD and the City? Hutchinson: Yes it will. Rountree: With just one access existing essentially today, how many lots would you be able to develop in any one phase? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree as before I believe 40 lots would be the maximum allowed by the Highway District in any one phase if you have one way in and one way out. I believe this is now interconnected through to Locust Grove as well as we will complete the connection from here down to Fairview Avenue. This will be phased, we are hoping to have it phased. I believe we are looking at a phasing of an east side and a west side with the west side developing first through the provision of the sewer requirements. Hepper: You have some bigger lots there on the north end there adjacent to the 1 acre lots in the adjacent subdivision there, the minimum house size is 1400 square feet, in past experiences we had subdivisions backing up to bigger subdivisions they put the adjacent houses at a little bit bigger footage, would you be willing to maybe increase the footage on those 4 lots those 4 estate sized lots to maybe 1500 square feet? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hepper, I would have to speak to the developer on that. Hepper: I would think that the economics would suggest that the price of the lots and the size of them that the house would automatically be bigger than that anyway. Just so those property owners that back up to that property line would have some assurance that they would have. Hutchinson: It makes sense, again I would have to clear that with the developer. Johnson: 1 have one question I am dying to ask of the developer, there is a rather exhaustive letter in the, as there is on most of our applications from the Joint School District No. 2 which is the Meridian School District regarding the difficulty they are having 0 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 24 with schools and crowding and the fact that this particular subdivision would feed schools that are already at their maximum or over their maximum capacity. Do you have any comments regarding that letter from the school district? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, I have just seen this letter today, it is one that again we are acutely sensitive to the overcrowding that is in the Meridian School District at this time. I think most of the developers are willing to work with the school district in an attempt to come to some sort of a solution or some way to aid the school district in that dilemma. 1 don't know how to address it at this particular time. Again, I believe the developer will need to look at this to see if there is something that they can't, to see if there is someway to work with the school district to help them out. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? This is a public hearing, is there someone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Dennis Brockway, 1059 Justin, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brockway: We have some of the adjacent Carol Subdivision neighbors here tonight and I am going to speak to one item that 1 think is very important. I want to say this right the first time, the gentleman that proceeded me here was making quite a case for these extremely large lots that will buffer our acre and a half and acre lots. I don't seem them as extremely large, I think 20 feet of the northern boundary of this proposed subdivision should be common area with a berm and a fence. And I am talking maybe a berm 6 feet high in the middle and a 4 foot fence on top of that. Heavily landscaped, because can you imagine, 1 don't want to have to be either of the 2 most impacted lots, maybe that is why I am up here speaking. Can you imagine on some of those northern lots 2 story homes looking down onto those homes that are used to having a lot of space around them. Normally, a good planner will want to buffer an acre and a half lot with maybe a 3/4 or 1/2 acre lot and I think that this berm is a very good compromise where you don't have the buffering. Now I have others here that will perhaps raise their hands or do you want them to come up here individually. Johnson: We will just call each one individually that wants to come up here. Brockway: 1 am done, thank you very much gentlemen. Jon Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Barnes: As all of you know I am in the development business, I guess it is more fun sometimes to come and grade somebody elses report cards and I guess we can get a little more critical of someone else's than our own. There are a couple of things, I want to talk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 25 of developments you approve. Specifically on this Packard Subdivision there are some things that I think are good about it, the density I don't' think is any problem, it is just over 3 lots to the acre. But the overall design, to me, and I think I would just like to, you guys should really take a good look at the design of this, it is very much an 1870's what I would call a drafting 101 type approach, a grid, perpendicular streets, north and south east and west. I think that the lasting beauty and integrity of a community needs to be a lot in a design and when you think about design and talk about curve or linear streets that flow that have, if you look at this Subdivision like Packard Avenue, the streets that goes up and down on the east side of the development it is nearly a 1/4 mile long. It is a completely straight street, having been in this business a lot of years all of those houses would be set, the garages would be set back at 20 feet and you would have just a straight line of houses kind of government housing feel. You will also, Ted here said there wouldn't be a speed problem, when you have that much of a straight away down through there you do have a speed problem and again they are selling homes here that would probably be $130,000 - $140,000 homes with children and stuff and safety is definitely a concern. 1 would just like to encourage you to be more critical of us developers on the design of what you take a look at here. I know that you get overwhelmed with a lot of applications, you get a lot of pressure, but you are building something that is going to be here for 30, 40, 50 years or longer and future generations are going to have to live with what you approve and go through. Specifically I live in the house directly north here with the pool (End of Tape) if you look at the depth of those lots that is my biggest concern and I have sold an awful lot of lots in this town and knowing the setbacks and the size of houses and I appreciate Mr. Commissioner Heppers concern of 1500 square foot minimum but my biggest concern is the depth. If you look at those there that are like 103 deep off that northern street which is called Catlin Drive, when you take the setbacks in a larger house like that starting with a 20 foot setback and then you put your 15 foot setback on the rear a larger home will be pressing right against, it will be right on that 15 foot rear yard setback. And that is really our concern to have 2 storys that sometimes go 30 feet in the air at a 15 foot point from the northern boundary of the subdivision. It would be very oppressive and really overbearing. 1 would like to either have some kind of a buffer, I would suggest that you either cut some out of the 4 1/2 acres of park and 1 do commend them for that, that is a really nice park, it is a big park something the city needs. I know you know that too, but some kind of a buffer or rotate those lots, they are 127 feet wide, 128 feet wide rotate them the other way and give us the depth north and south and the width at 100 so that, people like to live at the rear yard. And then those houses are further from the rear yard and aren't as oppressive to us because those 2 houses in Carol Subdivision at the south end, (inaudible) are fairly close to this property. But other than that 1 don't have any other comments, but I would encourage you to really consider some may of deepening those lots or putting some kind of a good buffer along that north boundary. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Barnes? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 26 Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Barnes? Douglas Miller, 1035 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: I live just west of Mr. Barnes, so we are living directly adjacent to the subdivision. If you count these lots that are adjacent to us that it is not only 3 but 4 lots would be adjacent portions to our lots. I think this acre subdivision has been inhabited by few people who at great forethought and great expense have carved out some privacy, some open space and I see these homes crowded densely on the south boundary as very much an invasion of that privacy and very much a degradation of the original concept that was designed for these 1 acre subdivisions. I very much agree with the sentiment of increasing that setback, I think the berm idea is an excellent idea to provide the privacy for us as well as privacy to those neighboring lots on the south there. That I think is our major concern of this subdivision as it is outlined. I think the berm with a considerable buffer along that boundary would be appropriate. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Miller. Dick R.W. Peckenschneider, 1131 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Peckenschneider: I wanted to reiterate basically what they are saying because there are several of us that are homeowners there and we didn't buy those houses to have a bunch of mickey mouse little lots built to the south of us. The buffer zone, Dan told me that we needed a berm and 1 agree with that but I think he is a little short, i think it ought to be 20 feet high. I would probably put concertina wire on the top of it but the only way you are going to block this off, now Miller's and Barnes those are the ones that are going to be hurt, I am not going to be hurting near as bad because I am 4 houses on down. But it is still messing me up because if those kids and if you are going to have 128 houses, the way I figure it the way they breed you are going to have about 2 kids per house and a dog and I don't know how many cats are all going to be streaming over into our area which we have tried to subdue to a point and that is why we bought out there. We didn't by acre lots out there and buy expensive homes to have, I got 10,000 feet of grass and that isn't even part of my lot for crying out loud, I just don't understand this. 1 think we need a big buffer, I don't know how deep it is going to have to be for Millers and Barnes but it has to be far enough back that you can build a berm and I say a fence too. So it isn't going to be something kids are going to be playing in and getting hurt on. We don't need this, personally don't want it, I don't know where all these kids are going to go to school, in fact I don't even know where they are getting to get the jobs, 128 houses. One place to get out and there is not even a stop sign that comes out of that place right now, you get down to Fairview, I have been about run over several times, if wasn't a wild man I would have been hit. But you are sitting there with one stinking road that comes into Fairview and you are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 27 going to put another 128 houses with the rest of all of those houses that are up there. It is unbelievable, it is ludicrous and where are these kids going to go to school? I don't want them crossing over into Barnes and the Millers and then pretty soon they infiltrate Johnsons yard and then(inaudible) and then mine. I don't want, I don't like it, I think it sucks. Johnson: It is a neighborhood with character. William Ball, 1058 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ball: Well, I can't quite follow that act, but I think everyone has pretty much covered the situation that we are faced there with on Justin Place. I just want to add my piece that we are in support of the berm, the original by Dennis I think is a good one with the 6 feet and the additional fence on top of that. John made some original points about the development of the project and again I would just like to firm that I support the objection and the berm. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Mr. Ball. Anyone else? Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: Going along with our gentlemen here, he says he has 1 acre that he has been trying to protect without the invasions, we have 5 acres and they are right up against our fence thanks to all the granting of the zone changing. And when (inaudible) he says he would like to help the school districts the best way to help them is to squelch the subdivision, 128 new houses. I think if anybody would check with he realtors they will find that there is approximately between 500 and 600 houses available in the Meridian district right now. That does not include all the houses that are being built and already have been granted the zone changes so that they can be built. We have also been told repeatedly because I have been to numerous meetings here with all of the subdivisions about the road study for Locust Grove, did I understand the gentleman to say they may go onto Locust Grove as an access for the subdivision, in that case I would like to see one of the reports that we are supposed to be getting on the Locust Grove Road traffic because those of us that live there in the immediate area know what Locust Grove Road is right now and what is going to be like. Especially if we get the others granted at the end of Locust Grove, so Locust Grove is greatly picked on. 1 would like to know where t could get a copy of this report if it has actually been done. I have heard developers say that there is being one done. Where do I go to get this report? Johnson: When the traffic study comes in and it is submitted to the city, I understand it goes to you Gary is that correct? Gary gets a copy of it, our City Engineer. Once done 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 28 is it available to the public? (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: It is public information once it comes in. So once we receive it is public information which means you can have a copy at $50.00 a copy or something like that. Sharp: If it is like the Comprehensive Plan it will be obsolete before it is printed. Johnson: Like everything else. Sharp: I would also like to reiterate like I said before that we also have problems with water in that area and I don't know if they have that immediately in this 39 acres. Wingate Lane of course is just you might say abutting that property and there is a high water table. We know, we have dug down there is the hard pan and water does not seep through. We have also been told to use surface water and we know that there are problems from the drainage with that. But I would like to say again to use a little bit of foresight and not so much hindsight. Our schools are suffering, I saw an article in the paper about our volunteer fire department, it is going too fast and there is not a real reasonable. There is no demand for housing right now in Meridian (inaudible) but there are all these properties available, the realtors would probably like to say let's sell what we have got. Let's use a little bit of foresight. Johnson: Thank you. Burt Borrup, 2640 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attomey. Borup: What I see here is kind of the cart before the horse thing. There are so many things that need to be addressed in this subdivision. This is the heart of the mile section and access is terrible to it, I think fire protection would be poor even when it is fully developed. As Helen pointed out we have a lot of subdivisions, I can stand in my front yard and probably see 5 that are just slightly developed as we speak. So I really don't' think that the time is right necessarily for this subdivision. 1 think there are a lot of things that have to transpire to make this plan work as it is on this map. I have the property directly north of it, for instance one of the things if they do decide to have a berm and I can understand why you do want a berm I have to irrigate from the ditch that runs down there. And I think covering the ditch is a good safety thing, is it going to prohibit people from getting up and down that lane to take care of their irrigation needs that still use this as farm property. That is something that will have to be taken care of. I know in the past that certain subdivisions have gone in and created all kinds of havoc with people who still want to have flood type irrigation. And I know one in particular that has been addressed to this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 29 board probably half a dozen times and is still not taken care of. So, that is just one of many things, it is not the fact that I am totally against growth it is just proper growth and I see the timing of this particular subdivision as just being really premature. If the roads were to develop around it let's get the sewer a little farther a little closer to it. Possibly in the next 2 to 3 years I don't know how the legislature is going to handle another school but maybe a little more schooling. Certain things to where when this finally does go and it is not such a great impact sewer wise anything wise I think we have enough subdivisions presently in progress. I think we are going to go into a slowing situation through the winter. I am sure they are looking at this optimistically from a development standpoint, but I think it would fill up slowly. I am not necessarily in favor of, I know they said temporary lift station, but temporary is going to be dictated by development and consequently by allowing this lift station it not only sets a precedent of other lift stations in the future. Having talked to Don Johnson at the City of Boise a lift station of this magnitude is going to be $100,000 to $150,000 and if it is turned over to the city of Meridian there is possibly a $5,000 annual fee to maintain this station. If they waited and did hook up to the trunk line when it progresses that would be an expense that the taxpayer would not have to withstand. I just see a lot of things here that aren't necessarily as wrong as early. I think if they waited they would have less objection, I think they would have a cleaner development and it would fit in the community at a more timely fashion. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Borup, is there anyone else? Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alleman: I guess I have some questions and it primarily pertains to the lift station which is temporary. What I was wondering is if this is temporary what is the time limit for it to become permanent. What are the provisions for enforcing it if it has a time limit. What does it do for the development of the trunk line which is to be developed along the south slough, I think now is called another name. Is there any provision for, if it is temporary we say then in the future it is going to contribute to the trunk line. When can this be taken here, what if they say your time is this time and ours is another time? Johnson: I will ask our City Engineer to comment on lift stations and the temporary status. Did you have any other questions before we do that? Alleman: What is the provisions is there bonding that is required for something along this line? And also in operation of the lift station is that the City's obligation or who does the repair and the operation of the lift station. I guess 1 am concerned that they, this could be delayed or more or less on a permanent basis. Johnson: 1 think it is probably appropriate at this point to have Gary talk to us a little bit 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 30 about these temporary lift stations. We have a couple on line now if you would like to fill us in briefly Gary. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, Vern, the word temporary means that at some point in the future the lift station could be abandoned and it is only temporary to that extent. In my mind the word temporary does not carry a specific time limit with it. It would all be dependent on the rate at which the property to the north of this piece would develop and the south slough or the finch lateral trunk line would be extended to the east. Ultimately that south slough or finch lateral trunk line will extend and serve all of the property to the east to our east impact boundary line which is a 1/4 west of Cloverdale Road. That is the significance of the south slough or Finch lateral interceptor. The policy of the City Council of the City of Meridian in the past has been development as it develops extends the sewer and the water services to and through their properties. In this particular case the sewer exists this time at Locust Grove Road which is a 1/2 mile to the west. There are 2 parcels of ground that have been proposed in the City of Meridian for development that would require the extension of the south slough of the finch lateral interceptor. One would be the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision the other one would be, 1 think it is referred to as PNE/Edmonds annexation. It has not been submitted for preliminary plat as far as I know but it has been submitted for, it is the existing Brown property, I believe it is referred to. So the development of both of those parcels and the extension of that sewer trunk line would also cross your property as you and I have discussed several times. The development of those parcels of ground would get the interceptor to Wingate Lane. Then it would be a matter of extending a line in Wingate Lane to the south to pick up this lift station and at that time this lift station would not be active any longer it would be abandoned. The requirements if this subdivision is approved by the Council the improvements for the Subdivision including the lift station would be at the expense of the developer. The maintenance of the lift station would be carried on by the City of Meridian. Obviously as 1 have expressed to everybody that I have talked to in the past we are not in favor of lift stations because they are a high maintenance item. It is a daily maintenance routine, 365 days a year. And it is an expense, I guess it is something the City Council needs to weigh against this development and the features of this development. Have I answered your questions? Alleman: I guess then would be my concern would be in as much as they would be contributing to the trunk line I am wondering if they would be delaying some development rather than to contribute to the trunk line. t think possibly that in order for this to be on a temporary basis that there should be some bonding, so if they say I am not going to do what are we going to do about it. I think perhaps a solution might be that they would provide a bonding to see that it was done whenever it was needed, other wise you are going to be in a no catch situation because you are not going to be able to do the trunk line. I hope I am not looking at this from a selfish individual standpoint or from the 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 31 standpoint of trying to curtail their development. Johnson: Thank you Vern, is there anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Don Bryan, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bryan: All I had to look at was this little plat plan, just like all the rest of the subdivisions around the area. My irrigation lateral runs down the south border of this property. I have 4 developers at the intersection of that property where the roads are ending and the ditches are coming together and the lots are backing up to. 1 would tike to ask the developer what he had in mind for that section of ground right there and what he is going to do in the future and when. And also in conjunction with Dove Meadows development as to if he has worked with the Dove Meadows developer and talked to him about the problems we are having out there and what he found doing in the future as far as lining that ditch and providing the head gate access and working with the church property. And while 1 am here and have your undivided attention, I was wondering when this portion of Dove Meadows was ever approved which is on the church property? 1 have come to all of the meetings and I have never seen this portion of Dove Meadows every being approved. I have gotten a plat just like this and of course I have probably never seen a plat. 1 have gotten little pieces like this. We have a problem at that intersection and 1 wold like to see this addressed before this development gets under way. Because they don't even know where the streets are going yet according to the people I talked to in the developments. They have ideas and they want to do this map but 1 have nothing in writing. That is all I have. Johnson: Thanks Don, is there anyone else? Well, I don't see anyone, thank you for your testimony I appreciate that. I will close the public hearing, what would like the next step to be. I should really ask before I do that whether the developer had anything he wanted to add to the comments that were made and I can re -open the hearing if you would like to do that? I think I will re -open it and ask you a question. I will now re -open the hearing. Mr. Barnes was testifying with respect to, I don't think he was particularly impressed with your design. And in all seriousness his comments with respect to depth of lots on that long street, that might encourage speeding and that kind of thing. And it doesn't look like a plan that has a whole lot of imagination to it without being more critical than that. Do you feel a redesign of the plat there would be possible? And still be able to accomplish what you want to accomplish and maybe take into consideration some of the comments and objections you heard this evening? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, what you have is I guess the new terminology for it is new - traditional design. It is laid out on a grid system, the grid system is probably the most Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 32 efficient use of the ground. In order to accomplish the provision of this very large open space the design had to follow the neo -traditional street layout. I think more and more subdivisions are going to be going back to this particular design movements away from some of the typical subdivisions that have been designed through the 80's which have not promoted interconnection of traffic systems. But again this particular design was driven by the desire to provide that very large open space. If we redesign I don't know that we could get the curvilinear streets and some of the other things in there and still maintain that size of a park space. It is just not as an efficient use of the land as what we (inaudible). Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Hutchinson while we have here from the Commission. Rountree: Do you see it possible utilizing that open space that you propose though a reconfiguration as being if not part a total buffer to the properties to the north? Hutchinson: As I have indicated when I made my previous presentation the idea was to provide the larger lots so that there are fewer houses that would be adjoining those. not only are they subject to your 15 foot rear yard setback but the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in their comments have indicated that the Stokesbury Lateral in there also has a 40 foot right of way. Which provides further buffering and that puts the nearest house to the northern lot line of this development at 85 feet and in that 85 feet you will find 40 feet that is in that right of way and an additional 15 feet that is on our property which is the minimum rear yard setback. I believe that fencing would provide an adequate buffering. Hepper: There is a lateral that runs between the 2 properties? Hutchinson: Yes, the Stokesbury Lateral, in fact I believe there are 2 laterals that run in there, one has already been covered. There is an open one that currently runs back there. Hepper: Is that an (inaudible) irrigation ditch or drain ditch? Hutchinson: I would imagine irrigation where it is managed by the irrigation district. Hepper: It has an access road for the irrigation district is that correct? Hutchinson: They maintain a 40 foot, they have claim to a 40 foot right of way 20 feet on center on the lateral. (Discussion Inaudible) Hutchinson: They would still maintain that 40 foot right of way. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 33 Hepper: The property line would be somewhere in between those 2 even though there is an easement there. Hutchinson: The property line is located outside the easement. Hepper: Do the property owners on the other side of the ditch actually own that area? Hutchinson: I believe the irrigation district claims a right of way so 1 believe they are claiming (inaudible). Hepper: (Inaudible) own the property. What I am trying to figure out is who actually owns the property, you guys or the property owners. Hutchinson: I believe the property owner on the north would own it. Hepper: So if it is not on your property we should be tiling that ditch? Hutchinson: I believe the Meridian zoning ordinance requires that we tile all those that are adjacent to the property. Hepper: I am not sure how the fine points of that read as far as (inaudible). Johnson: Any further questions? Well, it is still open, anyone from the public one last time. Barnes: I am the one that brought up the idea of redesign but 1 really feel strongly that they could take that 41/2 acre park and utilize that green space with a redesign. Let's say they brought that main street in as it comes in as you seen down in the southwest corner and went across that. You know flowing with gentle curves and looped off that and tie that green space in and you could really make a much nicer neighborhood for the City. I just think that this typical grid approach I don't agree with what he said, that isn't I don't see developers going back to that, I see them going away from it because the buyers, it provides more community, better aesthetics. More or a variety instead of just looking right down the front of garages right straight down a street. Get away from the stereotypes of a lot of the old developments. I really would encourage you to consider asking them to come in with another concept that would serve this City and this community better. Thank you. Hepper: That ditch there that has an easement, if that is tiled that would be an additional 40 feet that would be kind of a no mans land, it is your actual property but there is an easement there. 9 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 34 Barnes: It isn't, the road from the edge of the ditch directly, the Stokesbury Lateral, directly south of my place and Millers, there is a roadway of maybe a little more than 10 feet to our property line from the edge of what is now the Stokesbury Lateral. The problem is whether, I have dealt with them on down stream of the Stokesbury lateral with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and we have put that Stokesbury in pipe, 24 inch pipe but they still retain the easement and won't allow us to do anything to that. Our concern is just like what was expressed earlier is that we have expensive nice homes, we worked hard to make it be in a private area, we feel that we need more than just an open area between. We would like to see some kind of a berm some kind of way to push back noise. The height of these bigger homes, because when you have a 100 foot lot on this big of house it is going to be right back at that 15 foot setback. Hepper: Do you think there would possibly be some way that something could be worked out between you and the developer to maybe have them landscape that 40 foot easement area once that ditch is tiled? Barnes: We would be glad to sit down with them, I know the developer, I used to sell him lots years ago. Hepper: (Inaudible) that there is an easement in there that Barnes: Would really be at Nampa Meridians, they still call the shots on that easement. They have the easement, we own the land but they have the easement and the right to use. Hepper: (Inaudible) I was just wondering if there was someway that something between you could be worked out for them to maybe landscape that or somehow provide you with some sort of buffer without having to redo their streets, their lots, their whole subdivision. I am just talking about that particular point not the whole configuration of the subdivision. Barnes: I would be nice to time something in up there, (inaudible) Kearney Place down Chateau Meadow all the way up through there. Mr. Johnson knows this, there is a lot of walkers and stuff that come all the way up and all the way to Eagle Road on that, so it provides kind of a recreation amenity in a sense right now. We feel that some kind of green buffer that could tie in, I don't' have a hard time with people walking up ad down, 1 think it is nice that there are those kinds of things left for people to be able to utilize. We are most concerned about the invasion of privacy and we have covered those things pretty much. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks John. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 35 Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I have to go along with Mr. Barnes there, we do need a berm and a fence in between the subdivision there. You need to keep out the people that are coming down that ditch road there with motorcycles and 4 wheel vehicles and everything and they are throwing their trash out. I don't mind the walkers, if they keep the dogs on a leash because I have some cattle there and they come out and chase my cattle. And they run up and down that ditch road with their motorcycles as fast as they can go and I do resent that. And so if we are going to have a subdivision we need a berm, fence and to keep the kids and everything else off that ditch road. I do have some questions on the sewer and the highway traffic, the education. I am just, we have water problems but then we say Meridian is going to drill 2 more wells, but someplace along the line we are not going to have the water to support all of this that is going on. And we have a drought as you well know and we have had for quite a number of years. So I think we need to take a real hard look at what is going on here. And not only this subdivision but others. That is all. Johnson: Thank you, Don you had another comment? Bryan: I think I better clarify this ditch and this berm and this landscaping situation, this road that goes down this ditch right of way is my access to the head gate and in the previous developments to the west have already given up that right of way and fenced to the backyards through that area. And the road and the canal is just a no mans land with fencing on both sides like a corridor you drive your car through for access to those head gates along that canal. We just can't eliminate access to those and put a nice pathway that would be nice for having a pathway and a green belt along there for all the walkers for all the subdivisions but I don't know how they will take my driving down through the middle of them in my car trying to get to my head gate. Hepper: We are talking about the north edge of this project, is that where your head gate is located? Bryan: That is where I pull my water from the main Stokesbury. It has already been provided in the previous developments with the fence on each side of the development and that 40 feet in the middle which is no mans land which is taken care of by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. In fact before they got their fences up I was driving my truck down through peoples back yards coming and going from the head gate that is probably why they put the fence up. It is going to be something that is going to have to be addressed before we start developing a green system along there. That is all I have. Johnson: Thanks Don, Burt. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 36 Borrup: I was going to stand up and tell Mr. Hepper that property, to clarify one thing is owned by the property owners to the north of it, John, myself and Mr. Miller. I have enjoyed those trips up and down that ditch with Don and his vehicle to turn my irrigation in. Another problem is there is an active head gate that is used by Dale Sharp, Floyd Reichert and Vern Alleman ultimately to irrigate their property that is south of my property, almost splits my property in half. Even if it is tiled they are still going to have to get down there to activate their irrigation, to start and to stop it. So there are going to have to be means provided for that. So and as Don stated it isn't a case of just being able to run a road down there or just landscape it because Vern lives on Ustick and he has to conceivably easily access that to make a living. Something else that kind of perplexes me about this whole thing is PNE/Edmonds is starting up Packard Subdivision and they have also applied for the Brown property for lack of a better way to put it. At this point in time if they solely own Packard Subdivision I could understand their anxiety to get something put through with a lift station and so on and so forth. But they have a conceivable piece of property to develop far closer to the trunk line, far more in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. If the City of Meridian is concerned about proper growth it complies with their property growth program far greater than to have a temporary lift station. If in fact they develop their first property first by the time it was completed they would more than likely be able to develop their second property without a lift station and a tax (inaudible) city of Meridian so they do have an option, they do have an opportunity to create revenue in their given trade without doing this property first. By doing this it not only sets a precedent for a lift station, but if you look at the big map and hypothetically the sewer trunk line does stop it is rendered basically the northeast corner of that mile section sewer less for who knows how long. And all that comes is real expensive horse property. So if growth is a concern of the City of Meridian and the sewer line is the necessity for growth I would encourage you to take a second look at this and encourage him to develop his first property first and then let the second property develop when the time is right and the roads are in and possibly another school is built or the case may be. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Brockway: 1 was here before so I don't have to get sworn in again, I wanted to, it seems there is a mood to worry about the developer and keeping it at 128 lots. That is not sacred, if we put the 20 foot in at the north and put the berm in he ends of with 118 lots, so what. He has a cat -cam system, just call it up and 1/2 hour later you change it. It is no big deal. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, that probably falls under re -design somewhere. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. What would you like the next step to be gentlemen? Rountree: For discussion sake I would like to see findings of fact prepared just to digest 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 37 all of the testimony. (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: You have the floor whatever you want. Rountree: (Inaudible) (End of Tape) Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will now have a 10 minute break please. TEN MINUTE RECESS Johnson: If we can call the meeting back to order please. ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREENHAVEN ESTATES BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for Greenhaven Estates would you please come forward. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: This application before you is a request for annexation to R-4 zoning with a preliminary plat known as Greenhaven Estates. It is situated on North Meridian, a 1/4 south of Ustick, north of an existing subdivision called Lansbury Lane. This development will consist of 40 single family dwelling lots on about 14.88 acres resulting in a density of 2.7 lots per acre which is considerable less than the R-4 request. The minimum building lot size is as it is shown on the preliminary plat is about 80 by 164 foot in depth or 13,000 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 38 square feet roughly. The structures in this development will comply with the R-4 zoning requirements of the City of Meridian zoning ordinance. There will be a 20 foot wide landscape common buffer along Meridian Road adjacent to the lots. There will be a landscaped drainage lot in the northwest comer for storm water management which will also act as a pedestrian access to neighboring properties. There will be a homeowners association formed to maintain the open spaces. Access to the development is via Meridian road and also Northwest 3rd Avenue going into Lansbury Lane. All the streets within the development will be built to Ada County Highway District Standards, there will be a variance request for the culdesac length on the westerly side of the development. It measures about 520 feet, the zoning ordinances allows 450 foot culdesac. Sewer and water into the development will be extensions of neighboring existing city services. There is an irrigation ditch along the easterly boundary and paralleling North Meridian Road that will be tiled. Pressure irrigation system will be installed in accordance with the Nampa Meridian standards. All the lots within the development will include landscaping and will be fenced by the developer who is also the builder on this particular project. In response to some of the agency comments, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District indicated some concerns about the Onweiler Lateral. That particular lateral is shown on their mapping systems to end at about the right of way line of Meridian Road. There is a pair of head gates there at the end of the Onweiler Lateral and that will be accommodated in our irrigation system. Some of the comments by the Planning Director Shari Stiles, we are comfortable with her comments, the one about the landscape median in Lansbury Lane to slow traffic, we met with Ada County Highway District on this preliminary plat design and they suggested the use of speed control bumps on that long stretch of roadway in the east west direction. The minimum building size in the R4 zoning ordinance is 1400 square feet, this development will comply with that ordinance. The developer has indicated that the houses will range anywhere from 1400 to 1800 square feet in size. I reviewed Gary Smith's and Bruce Freckleton's comments, we are okay with what they have had to say and most of those items will be addressed in the final design portion of the project. If you have any questions I would be glad to entertain those. Johnson: Thanks Gary, any questions of Mr. Lee? Rountree: Gary, have you talked to Gary Smith about his comments and could you elaborate a little bit on his comment 13? Lee: I haven't spoken with Gary about them, I have reviewed the comments. Let me see if I can find his list here, about the sanitary sewer. We did discuss that at the concept meeting about a continuation of the sewer system. And I did discuss it with the design engineer on Lansbury Lane. I am not sure what he is alluding to here, but we did review the depth of the sewer to accommodate that property. It appears from the initial point that it will, there are some other things about the sewer that 1 don't know about. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 39 Johnson: The Commissioner would like you to address that Gary please? Smith: Mr. Chairman, at this time there is a trench dug across the access road on the property to the south and west of Lansbury Lane Subdivision. We don't have access to the sewer line and that is what the comment alludes that was made in my review. That is my understanding that was being resolved but at this point we don't have access to that sewer line for maintenance purposes. Lee: That is south and west of Lansbury Subdivision? Smith: Yes, it is on the Bob Flaten property and that is a piece of property that the sewer line crosses that serves Lansbury Lane subdivision and will also serve this proposed subdivision. It has been a while since we had a meeting or had any discussion with our City Attorney concerning the status of that. It was my understanding it had been worked out to where the ditch that Mr. Flaten dug will be filled in and that Mr. Williams the developer of Lansbury Lane is going to do some work on the road itself and some other clean up work that Mr. Flaten had requested. So I believe it is being worked out, correct me if I am wrong Wayne but I think that is being taken care of. (Inaudible) Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Lee? Gary, the variance that would be necessary because of the length of the culdesac, the City Council has been pretty adamant about granting variances only in cases of hardship. What would be your response to that? Lee: I guess the hardship was created when Lansbury Lane was subdivided and the way it was. In that particular subdivision culdesac exceeded the minimum length as well and by virtue of their stub street we had to connect at that point and the shape of this property is narrow in deed, which doesn't give the owner of this property an opportunity to be real creative with a street system. A possible solution would be to extend a stub street to the west property line so that when that property line develops to the west it would eliminate any culdesac at all. Hepper: Could the stub street to the north be located in a different spot so that they don't' line up with the one to the south? Lee: We considered that as well and discussed that with the Highway District and Shari Stiles. The problem that we create there is the block length between that stub street and Meridian Road. Right now it is at the maximum thousand feet so there could be a variance either on block length to move that stub street west or a variance on the culdesac, but that is a good solution. I think that is what I would do if I had an opportunity. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 40 Hepper: Are there any other alternatives available besides just a straight shot? Lee: Well, there could be some meandering street through there, but the problem you create is lots of shallower depth and lots that are very deep. Right now they are very deep at 164 feet on each side. If you start meandering that street you get real deep lots in an excess of 200 feet which we don't believe is a desirable situation. Hepper: Or islands possible? Lee: Islands are a possible solution to help control traffic. Hepper: I am not so concerned about the traffic as the Aesthetics of it, the streets, just dead straight for I don't know how long it is. (Inaudible). Johnson: Thanks Gary, this is a public hearing anyone else like to address this? Rich Fern and Gloria Fern, 2790 North Meridian Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. G. Fern: We have some development concerns, when the development is finished we live directly across the street from the development which on your vicinity map had an R across the street. So, where the street is going to come out that is where our duplex is. Our residence sits directly next door to the duplex. The development concerns are when it is finished is that the traffic slowing in front of the house and the complex to turn in and out of the street that there will be cars constantly in front of our property. In talking with Shari Stiles and the highway district there are 400 estimated vehicle trips per day that will take place. Where the cars that will be coming out of Greenhaven Estates, the lights will be hitting directly onto our duplex and actually when they are turning the lights will be hitting into our residence. R. Fern: The lights will cross the entire structure. G. Fern: We are also concerned about street lighting so that it won't be offensive, if they proposing street lighting across the street where it will be shining directly into our windows also. Also, our tenants driveway backs out directly into the street, the Greenhaven Estates Street and we are concerned about that, that it will be dangerous for our tenant to be backing out into the middle of that street right of way. Building concerns, we are concerned that the debris from the construction site blowing over into the property that adequate dumpsters will be there to take care of that situation. Also that maybe they will have the street swept during, maybe once a week to pick up all the dirt. We are concerned mainly about how it is going to affect our tenants, that street where they will be exiting out of the subdivision is right where our duplex is. We are concerned about that confusion Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 41 going on. Some of our proposals are that maybe they can possibly move the street access to line up with our pasture. We have 290 feet across our pasture and if they can configure the street where they move it more north where it is not going to impact the duplex directly it would be better for us. We are also proposing that they put in sound walls and landscape barriers to curtail some of the noise and lessen the visual impact of headlights directly into the house and the duplex so that we can have our privacy preserved. R. Fern: That is pretty much it, as you mentioned that is a very long street and for someone living at the end of that street coming down the street with say a 4 by 4 aimed at the duplex would be quite something to experience in the middle of winter when everything is real dark. As Gloria said we do have a pasture that is north of the duplex, the pasture probably starts 15 or 20 feet north of that with all the 290 feet of frontage. now John's property also has more space to the north of it. It is to the north of where the road is proposed, I don't' know how much. We are hoping that perhaps that could be changed somehow and some way. G. Fern: Another situation that we have going on is that our house and duplex are very close to the street, so if we have the impact of these 400 estimated vehicle trips per day going on it is almost right onto our property there with all of this interaction going on all day long with these vehicles. R. Fern: A couple of years ago North Meridian Road was widened and the amount of traffic on that street now has increased to say the least. I can only assume that it will get a lot more and I am envisioning at certain times of the day and evening where cars are going to have to slow and pull into that center turning lane and wait in front of the duplex to turn. That is not a good thought, it is like a constant flow of cars in front of our house. It is fairly negative I would say. G. Fern: Our house is right next door to the duplex, so whatever impacts the duplex is also going to our impact our residence where we live, so we are very concerned about that. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this application? Dan Sweet, 2975 North Meridian Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sweet: Thank you for letting me speak, I am not opposed to development in Meridian, I think it is healthy in some cases. I did speak earlier to the developer and my biggest concern would be the size of the houses that he is going to put on there. I think if you folks could remember the development next to his on the south Lansbury Lane has houses 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 42 that are in the 1800 square foot size range. When we start to go down to an R-4 and houses are going to be around the $100,000 price range I guess that is a big concern that we would have since our house on the north would be in the 2600 square foot range. I am very concerned about the Comprehensive Plan that we are developing here and that we stick with not real expensive developments and little so so developments. I had some of the same concerns about traffic and obviously we know stuff is going to develop. I did bring a preliminary plan of the property that would be north of that property. This would be Meridian Road, (inaudible) 3.2 houses per acre. We are looking at 2600 and 2200 square foot houses. I would just appreciate some consideration there and you folks looking at his plan (inaudible). Johnson: How many acres do you have there? Sweet: There are 2 5 acre parcels which is 10, that was Strausser Subdivision. Johnson: And the total number of lots? Sweet: 23 lots, thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? I saw another hand. John Sanford, 2880 Vendable Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sanford: I have lived on Vendable Lane some 24 years now. I have attended a number of these zoning meetings and apparently 1 am not getting anywhere. I own 20 acres, these 20 acres are in 2 separate parcels, 7 1/2 acres are east of Vendable Lane and I have 12 1/2 acres west of Vendable Lane. My property abuts the end of this subdivision. My cow pin is right here where I train cutting horses, about 40 feet from the end of that culdesac. The first meeting I attended was when Lansbury subdivision was being developed and indicated there was a culdesac. I asked him to plot that out because 1 need access. The reason I need access is because Vendable Lane is a private lane and it is deeded. They told me at the time that Vendable Lane was going to be a through street, it is obvious due to Waterbury Subdivision No. 5 that it is already not a through street. And all intent and purposes my 7 1/2 acres which is east of Vendable Lane is landlocked. I checked with an engineer from, I think the name was Brian Smith from Hubble Engineering regarding Waterbury Park No. 5 because the last meeting I attended here they indicated they were going to make some sort of stipulation to cross the slough into my property so I would have access into Waterbury No. 5. He tells my, Mr. Smith tells me this is not true, they did away with that. So in essence I am definitely landlocked on this 7 1/2 acres. Number 1 1 was told Vendable Lane would be a through street, I was told by 2 people at that time the City Engineer. I am a loss and I am disturbed, I am disturbed because it looks like you have 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 43 got me painted into a corner. I have already got kids coming from this Lansbury Subdivision chasing my horses which are right across the ditch. I am not in favor of any subdivision any more. But I am really not in favor of one when I am landlocked. I don't know what else to tell you but I think I have a problem and I think you are the only people that can solve it. Hepper: Your solution to the problem is to extend the street through to the property line, is that correct? Sanford: Number 1 1 think you need to abut that out, I tried to get them to abut it out on the Lansbury thing and he wouldn't do it. Now you are going to abut it out probably 50 to 60 feet south of my property line. So it isn't going to be down the center of my property. My property lays the same way as these 2 pieces do into Vendable Lane, 12 1/2 acres. I have a big horse arena there, I train cutting horses. Hepper: That would be if the street alignment was perfectly straight that would Sanford: Go right in between my cow pins. Hepper: It wouldn't line up with your Sanford: It would go right through my arena. Hepper: But it would only be a little ways from your property line? Sanford: About 30 to 40 feet. Hepper: Which for purposes of future development that wouldn't do you (inaudible). Sanford: I have to get somewhere somehow, I can't fly in there. Hepper: So if they provide access to the southern edge their property that would give you (inaudible). Sanford: You have encountered another problem, they are already talking about this big long street here and this speed deal. When I, when someone tears by building down and they develop it (inaudible) then you have a big long street to contend with. Vendable Lane needs to be a public street, that would take care of my problem on the 7 1/2 acres for the most part and my 12 1/2 acres. Hepper: Have you talked to Ada County Highway Department about that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 44 Sanford: Yes, he was at the last meeting here and said due to my elaborate facility, he never thought I would want to have access for reasons of development, because it is a pretty large arena. But I don't think it was Ada County Highway District's position or even their place to make judgement on my facility whether I wanted access or not. The other alternative, I don't know, 1 have never received notice of Waterbury 5 subdivision being finally approved other than talking to this one engineer that says they are not going to go across the canal like they told you. Johnson: Do you have anything else, that is what we are here for to gather this testimony so someone can get back with you and hopefully. Sanford: Can I have someone's word that they will get back with me, because I never heard about Waterbury No. 5 until I contacted this engineer. Johnson: I can't speak for the City but they get copies of all our minutes. If this does progress which it normally does. Sanford: Is there anyway I can legally stop this whole thing until 1 find out. I am not going to get land locked it is illegal. Johnson: My personal suggestion would be to talk to one of the City fathers. Sanford: I have talked to 2 of them. Johnson: Have you talked to the Mayor. Sanford: Yes, I talked to him when all of this started. Johnson: Have you talked to him since the promise wasn't' kept and you thought (inaudible) and what was the response you got on that? Sanford: Well, that was at the Waterbury No. 5 meeting, I didn't get an answer. Johnson: So you still don't have an answer. Sanford: Not unless you give me one. Johnson: I don't have any answers either, I don't' want you to tear down your arena and I sure as hell don't want you flying in there. We will work on getting you an answer we will do that. Anyone else? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 45 Joe Simunich, 955 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simunich: First of all I would like to bring one point forward and 1 think in our area of development there, the Vendable property, the Peterson property, the Lansbury property and now this property that the Homan property, it looks like each one of these developers looks at each one of these properties to his own benefit and not for the entire area. So I think Ada County Highway District, the City Council and Planning and Zoning, as these people come in for these rezones to divide this property should take a look at the entire area. Not only the property lines, but also for instance Vendable Lane is a private lane and there are some ditches in there. Before these plots are approved I think somebody should look at the entire area rather than just each individual 14 acre piece, a 10 acre piece or a 12 acre piece. That is enough on that. Now let's go to the irrigation and the Onweiler Lateral. That has been a headache for a long time and Gary Smith is aware of it, the Mayor is aware of it and numerous other people are. Now 1 understand this developer is scheduling pressurized irrigation. On Lansbury Subdivision on the plat on the covenants it says no irrigation water will be provided to the lots. The engineer now I hear him say there is going to be pressurized irrigation. On the Onweiler Lateral, it has probably been there for 60 or 70 years, we have a rotation on that lateral. 1 would approximate that the whole property has water for about 12 hours every 8 days. How are they going to have these people just draw water 12 hours out of every days and water all of their lawns. Can they change their rotation, can they do something else. This rotation has been established and we don't like to give up our water rights. Some people buy property because they irrigation during the day time, in the old days if you had to get water at night your property didn't bring near as much money. So, we still have 60 acres here and at the present time we have no intent of disposing of it. It seemed like each time one of these subdivisions come up I have to come in here and talk to you people, talk to the Council, but then furthermore we get a product or ditch or something that is unsatisfactory. Fences built right on top of the irrigation line. Other people haven't got access to their head gates, so these things need to be addressed and possibly while the engineer is here I would like to ask how he is going to water all these lots on a 12 hour rotation when he only gets water 12 hours out of every 8 days. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Joe, is there anyone else? Chris Williams, 4185 South Linder, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: I am a pretty strong advocate on property rights and people being able to do what they want to do with their property. I did appreciate the density on this subdivision that they had proposed. I am here representing the homeowners and builders in Lansbury, being the developer on Lansbury I wanted to read this letter. • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 46 Johnson: Are you with the homeowners association? Williams: I am the president. We received a certified notice for the proposed Greenhaven Estates subdivision and would like to commend the developer on his proposed densities. However, in order to establish continuity with our neighboring properties and the aesthetic quality that has already been established for a particular area of Meridian we respectfully request that the following restrictions be recommended to the City Council prior to the approval of this project. The first is, that the developer design the entrance and that it be reviewed by the City. On the property to the south, on Lansbury Lane I know from developing that to establish something a little bit nicer on that 350 foot stretch which isn't' a large stretch isn't a major expense. It ended up being and 1 think I have a really nice entrance that is above the norm, 1 think it cost me a total of less than 3% of my total development cost. It wasn't a major expense to create a nice atmosphere for the neighborhood, everybody sees when they drive by Meridian Road. They see the brick wall, in 10 years the brick wall is not going to be deteriorated like a cedar fence would. Landscaping, extensive landscaping something in brick or stone. We just want something next to us that isn't' going to adversely affect us and that is what the people are going to see. The second thing is that we would request that islands be proposed and required in this neighborhood for the slowing of the traffic as it was in Lansbury Lane. I submitted that letter to the Commission on that, that the requirement that was made by my or the suggestion that was made on Lansbury Lane when 1 developed that. I feel that speed bumps on the straight street will only cause deflection of traffic through Lansbury Lane. Lansbury Lane the cross street is already a restricted right of way as it is. It was designed, the street was designed to restrict traffic from going through there on the basis that in the Comprehensive Plan at that time, I am not sure if it is still in the new Comprehensive Plan but Vendable Lane was designated as a collector for the center of that section. And I am not sure if that is still in effect in your Comprehensive Plan or not. But when I did go through the approval process of Lansbury it was. The linear streets, I know that they talked about this on the long stretch on Packard Subdivision. The street is, property is 1710 feet long, it is over a 1/4 mile. What we have done and this is just a suggestion, we alternated setbacks. We have 25, 30 and 35 foot setbacks, they are a little bit larger but we are doing a little bit larger homes. I am going to go ahead and read this third request. We understand the minimum square footage in an R4 zone is 1400 square feet, we also know that in certain circumstances and the circumstances I think Hunts Bluff is an example, I think Cougar Creek is an example, there were several examples that Shari Stiles gave me this morning that under certain circumstances the City has required a greater minimum than the minimum square footage set by the ordinance. Based on the following facts we feel that this project warrants similar consideration and thus request that a reasonable minimum of 1600 square feet of living space be required in Greenhaven. Greenhaven is between Lansbury Lane which is averaging 2000 square foot homes and that is based on 19 homes that are built and are in the process of being built. And that is 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 47 the minimum, we are requiring a minimum in Lansbury of 1700 square feet in a single story and 1800 square feet in a 2 story, but our average is 2000 square feet and we are requesting 1600. The Sweet property on the north, their 5 acre lots and their 2 homes consisting of 2650 feet and 2200 feet on 5 acre lots. Shari Stiles had communicated to me that Gary Lee the engineer on the project had said that the economics involved with larger lots would dictate larger homes. But after discussing this with the developer on the project he plans on building they said 1400 to 1800 square foot homes. At the time we talked to him he said 1350 to 1600. And that it was economically feasible because he was the developer and the builder. We don't feel that allowing 1400 square foot homes built between projects with homes of 2000 square feet and 2650 square feet is good long term planning for the City of Meridian, not to mention the economic injustices placed on our property. We are talking a distance between the edge of my lots and my homes to the edge of where the Sweet's property is we are talking 370 feet. There is not a large width there that we are dealing with between the 2 properties. Dan has 11 lots that border his property from Greenhaven so he has the potential of eleven 1400 square foot homes next to his 2650 square foot home. I've got 21 lots that border this project and I am averaging 2000 square feet. Economically the people that invested in my project look across their fence at a 1400 square foot home, 30% smaller, 30% less value it is going to negatively affect their values without a question. That is basically my main concerns. To address the issue with the sewer, we are working on it, at this point in time I have spoken with the Mayor, I am having the trench put back in, the overflow is being removed. It is just a matter of getting my contractor out there, he is cranking out roads right now for subdivisions before fall. But I think I will get him out here at the end of next week or two and get that cleaned up. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Williams? Thank you, anyone else? Joe Simunich: Can the engineer explain to me how he is going to do his irrigation water/ Johnson: On your time but not on ours, you can have a meeting with him and give him an opportunity to address that, but I do not want to do that here. We are not in the answering business right now. We are gathering information. Anyone else? I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do? Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this application, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 48 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY DIANE AND ROBERT LANG: Johnson: I am going to be stepping down on this item because of a potential conflict and let Charlie Rountree handle it. (Chairman Johnson steps down and Commissioner Charlie Rountree takes his place) Rountree: Is there someone here for the applicant, I will open the hearing. Roan Wilson, 1567 Leslie Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wilson: It just says here this will be an antique store, it will be an antique and collectible store. Diane Lang has been involved in this business for some time and she does a first class operation. It would really be a great addition to the area. This property is adjacent to the alley directly across from the post office. ACHD recommended or suggested that the alley be paved as far back as this piece of property goes. That is fine, however we are finding out that it is a little difficult to get an engineer to come right out there right away to address the requirements and we are running into the winter. We would just like to ask that a little time be allowed to get the paving done in case we have a big freeze and they can't do it in the middle of winter. Are there any questions? Rountree: No questions here, you might want to come back if some do come up. Anybody in attendance want to address this? Seeing none I will close the hearing. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Chairman Johnson returns to his seat) ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO BELL RESTAURANT BY JONATHAN GIBBS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative from the applicant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 49 that would like to address the Commission please do so at this time. Ronald Thurber, 111 S. 6th, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Thurber: Gentlemen, you have before you a request for a conditional use permit for a Taco Bell development, 1 1/2 acres. The zoning is in place for what we are requesting, the fact that we are putting in a drive in window does require a conditional use permit. We have reviewed the conditions placed by our Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles, we agree with her findings of fact and would abide by her findings. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any questions at all? Shearer: I have one, we have over the past 10 years have done a lot of work to upgrade downtown Meridian and Corporate Park up there has done a lot of landscaping. As I am sure you are aware this piece of property and Kentucky Fried Chicken property has a 20 foot weed easement between the road and their property. I am quite concerned with what you will do in the way of landscaping to bring so that we don't have a weed patch off your property in your right of way? Thurber: You will find in your packet the landscape plan that was prepared by Tom South, landscape architect, if you don't have one (End of Tape). Here is the landscape plan, the strip over on the East 1 st Street has presently a large (inaudible) which is full of weeds and we are filling that and we are landscaping as you can see with an automatic sprinkler system. Any other questions? Hepper: We have seen several proposals for this new road that you have proposed here from Ada County Highway District, is this the final draft. Thurber: This is their latest and greatest, they are doing a fairly large take there and yes that is correct. Hepper: You will have curb, gutter and sidewalk (inaudible) Thurber: Yes sir Johnson: Are you involved only with the Taco Bell and not the other planned development? Thurber: That is correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 50 Johnson: Any other questions? This is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to come forward right now? Everybody likes Taco Bell, I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have Findings of fact and conclusions prepared on the request for a conditional use permit. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and second that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORD & B SUPPLY BY NEB -i COMPANY: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for NEB -i or D & B Supply would they please come forward at this time. Dick Schrandt, 2110 Idaho Avenue, Caldwell, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schrandt: Tonight we are looking for an affirmative vote from the Commission to allow for the construction of a retail store east of the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. At this point in time we have met all the requirements required by the City without any significant deviation including some additions to the drawings that you have already been given. Where we have included more trees in the internal part of the parking lot of the store, we have provided more screening on the south side of the property on Wilson Lane. We have also met with ACHD and have met all of their requirements as well. We have a development agreement that has been submitted to the City and it is under review right now to be completed in this next week is our understanding or within this week. We have reviewed all the City department comments that have been given to us so far and we have no problems complying with any of those. For a little background on our business D & B Supply has been doing business in the valley here for over 30 years. We feel that our business has a lot to offer in the way of products and services for Meridian. We are going to have a very positive impact on the tax base of Meridian I think. We are anxious to do business here in Meridian and we are anxious to contribute to the City of Meridian any way that we can. Unfortunately though the time is of the essence for us now. We need to get started on construction this fall before we get into any kind of freezing conditions in order for us to be open next spring. From the drawings that we have given you we hope we have convinced you that this is going to be a very attractive store. We think it is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 51 be a very good addition to the City of Meridian. I would be available for any questions at all. Shearer: Do you have these 4 extra lots there, do you have any idea what those are going to be at this point? Schrandt: At this point no, this is just a request for the D & B portion and those lots will be represented in the future at Planning and Zoning meetings. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Schrandt? Hepper: Have you seen the findings of facts? Johnson: No, those are preliminary if we have them. Hepper: There is a comment about the Comp Plan calls for a 35 foot setback on the front landscaping for an entry corridor into the City. It states here that the applicant was proposing a 15 foot setback and on the drawing it shows a 12 1/2 foot setback. Schrandt: The setbacks from the center of Fairview? Hepper: I am not sure. Schrandt: We understand that we are in compliance with ACHD in all setbacks and as far as the landscaping border on the Fairview side we got in drawings we are proposing a 25 foot. (Inaudible) Schrandt: For the landscape portion? It could be, Wayne that it is an older drawing there but it is my understanding that we had a 25 foot landscaped area there. I believe from day 1 we have had 25 feet. Hepper: Is the 35 foot setback possible or is the size of lot not allow that? Schrandt: it really impacts significantly into the parking we have available on the lot. We are trying to be in conformance with what else is being developed along that same strip anyway. I have been talking with, (inaudible) addressing that 25 foot. In our conversations with city personnel we understand that 25 would be an acceptable type of distance there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 52 Hepper: Could you comment on the shrubbery and the trees and planting that you plan on having? Schrandt: Right now we have got a number of them in the drawings, we met with Shari Stiles and she has given us the requirement that there be on the property 68 3 inch caliber trees as part of the landscaping requirement. In addition to that will be many decorative shrubbery along that same landscape area too. Our idea here is we want to make this thing look very attractive to folks that are going to be shopping in the area and we don't, we are not going to be sloppy at all when it comes to the landscaping. As you have seen in that design we have, there is a lot of screening all around that property, and in a new store that we have built in Ontario we have done the same type of thing, we put in more landscaping than what they had required over there. Hepper: Could you comment about any fencing or anything on the back of the property. There is a residence back there that faces directly into the back of the store, is there any possible thing that can be done to that. I don't know put in some trees or shrubs to help the view of the back of the store. Schrandt: We are going to be continuing in providing landscaping across the back of the store as well. That was a comment made by Shari and we don't' have any problem providing that as well. It is not (inaudible) but that was one of the new requirements that she talked to us about and we don't' have any problem with that. We are going to make sure that it is going to, it is not going to be a hazard when people are trying to pull out of that area onto Wilson Lane at this point it time it is not a problem but whatever developments happen on down the road and if Wilson becomes a busier street we want to make sure we don't create a blockage so they can't get out and see what kind of traffic is coming. Hepper: Will you guys be improving Wilson Lane? Schrandt: Yes, we are meeting ACHD requirements and improving that lane, where we do our half whether the paving. Johnson: Anyone else? This is a public hearing would anyone else like to come forward? Tom Zabala, 815 Park Boulevard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Zabala: I know the hour is late and I appreciate your diligence to the task at hand here. I myself have served over 10 years on the Boise City Planning and Zoning and Design Review Commission so I know what an effort it is at these public hearings. When I came here this evening I didn't have a receding hair line or a beard so I have been here quite Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 53 a while. I am here this evening however along with Mr. Fred Mack, we are representing Thom and Barbara Myall who own the property to the south of the subject proposal across Wilson Lane. We have had the opportunity to review the site development plans. The earlier plans that were proposed for this project and like your staff have had some concerns that we would like to share with you this evening. We do request that conditions be added to any recommendation for approval by the body to the City Council to ensure that this project is developed in accord with the Meridian zoning and development ordinance and the comprehensive plan so that it is in fact harmonious with the intended character of the neighborhood and future land uses in the area. As designed and again I can only refer to the plans that we have been privy and not what we've heard by the applicant here this evening. Although we do commend them for their commitment to doing the landscaping correctly, but in terms of the plans that we are privy to we believe that the landscaping along the south property line is inadequate. Immediately fronting the Myall property there is presently indicated 477 linear feet of unbuffered unlimited access frontage. The back of this area is indicated as the applicant's loading dock, their service area and their refuse area with unobstructed vehicular access along its entire length. There is no indication on the drawings that we are aware of that the existing lighting can, exterior lighting we can only assume there will be wall mounted lighting directed toward the street for both early morning and late evening operations and or for security. Trucks and vehicles that will be using this area will be there we assume on a continual basis with their lights perhaps horns, motors running, doors slamming etc. I do have and would like to enter into the record this evening this site plan which we will elaborate on. As you probably know Wilson Road is not developed as a major and will probably not be developed as a major commercial retail access road. It is conceivable that the highest and best use for the Myall's property to the south will be zoning that will allow for either Limited Office type uses or medium to high density residential uses. The applicant's current proposal creates what we believe to be a dangerous, injurious, obnoxious and otherwise objectionable conditions which would adversely impact these surrounding areas and not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. We would request that your recommendation for approval include conditions that require the applicant to number 1 provide and maintain adequate landscape screening and buffers along this south property line to protect the adjacent property line from excessive exposure to noise, refuse, fumes, glare of lights, debris, miscellaneous mechanical, electrical ground mounted equipment in that area, or any other unsightly developments that may occur at the rear of this building. And this is a fairly significant size building on this big piece of property. We would also like that the applicant provide and apparently there is conditions under way to that effect. The appropriate right of way improvements that will not only define and limit vehicular and service truck access to the sight but there by avoid creating any interference or hazards with traffic on the adjacent Wilson Street. We believe that this will provide, safe and fast and efficient movement of both vehicles and pedestrians along this frontage. We would request that the conditions of approval be specific in that the applicant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 54 specifically define the improvements that are proposed along here and that those improvements should include a minimum of 5 to 6 foot high screen to be provided along the south property line. This screen may include fencing, walls and or landscape combinations to provide a dense sight obscuring sound absorbing buffer. We believe the planting should be installed with gross characteristic which will provide the right height and sight obscuring capabilities within a 2 year period of time, that the landscape area should be developed with a random and natural layout with both coniferous and deciduous elements. All planters we believe should not be less than 6 feet wide within the property to provide adequate growth area for plantings and to protect from dehydration along this south side. Obviously all landscaped areas should be fully equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. We believe that access to Wilson Road should be limited to the 3 access points and egress points that we have indicated. And that obviously clear vision triangles be observed in regard to all screens and vegetation, walls or other items that may be built in there for other purposes. Any lights that occur along this area should be shielded or arranged to reflect away from the properties to the south. And of course as we have mentioned that all of the requirements by the Ada County Highway District for street improvements, curb, gutter and sidewalk should be fully improved along that property line. We believe that D & B Supply will be a good neighbor in this area and we appreciate their commitment to doing the job right. We believe that the conditions as we have outlined them here this evening will encourage further excellence in creativity in the design for future developments and promote the goals of the comprehensive plan. Thank you very much, I would like to enter this testimony into the record also. I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Are they any questions of Mr. Zabala? This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Thom Myall, 6227 Marlbourough Drive, Goleta, CA, was sworn by the City Attorney. Myall: I would like to read a prepared statement. I am representing my wife, Barbara Myall and myself. We are the property owners at 1470 N. Locust Grove Road, Meridian Idaho, which is immediately south of the NEB -i proposal. This property was the home of my wife's late parents for thirty years and is presently rural residential in Ada County and zoned Rural Transitional (RT). We have maintained a gravel road down Wilson Lane to our residence during this time. The property consists of a residence and approximately 16 acres, lots 18, 19 and 20 of Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The home is viable residence which is currently leased. At this time we do not know how our land will be developed. We realize Meridian is experiencing growth and desires commercial development to increase its tax base, provide jobs and offer local shopping, a goal stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. As commercial development encroaches in an historically rural residential subdivision, often incompatible land uses result. The Meridian Comprehensive 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 55 Plan addresses this issue relative to the Pleasant Valley Subdivision, which is designated as a Mixed Use area. Policies applicable to development are stated, specifically paragraph 5.18U, pages 28, "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." Also, the issue of screening and buffering is addressed in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, August 16, 1994.In addition, the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance 1993 contains ordinances that diffuse the adverse affects of commercial uses on residential property. The following items are applicable to this development and of interest to us. 1. Provision for commercial and industrial uses. 2. Outdoor storage of commercial and industrial material. 3. Design standards for off-street parking. In addition to the written testimony of October 5, 1994 submitted to the Meridian Planning and Zoning by Mr. Fred Mack and Mr. Zabala's comments this evening, we have the following concerns relative to the impact of the NEB -i proposal will have on our property. The present application and site plan show a D & B retail store, with parking lot and storage yard. There is a potential for glare from the parking area lights and rear store security lights and the potential for contaminated water run-off from the parking area and building. We are currently on a well at the residence. In reference to the aforementioned policies and ordinances, and in order to minimize the adverse affects created by the development on the continued enjoyment of our residence and any future development of our property, we suggest the following be required: 1. Appropriate landscaping, berming and fencing be increased from what is shown on the site plan to extend the entire length of the storage yard, building and parking lot as they abut Wilson Lane. 2. The rear of the site be limited to 3 access points on Wilson Lane, 2 curb cuts located at the west end and one curb cut to the east end. These two items wold reduce the adverse impacts of glare and noise and unsightly view from our residence. 3. We request that all drainage from the site enter a sewer system. 4. We request that during the construction ingress and egress to our residence not be blocked at any time. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. I have the prepared statement. Johnson: Thank you. How long have you actually owned the property? Myall: We have owned the property for approximately 4 years, my wife lived there for 2 years prior to our marriage. Johnson: At one time there was some commercial use of that property was there not? Myall: Not that I am aware of, unless the raising of alfalfa on that land. Johnson: I thought there was a sign business operated out of that residence for some time? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 56 Myall: (Inaudible) our rental contract states that there will be no commercial business ran out of that house. We found out through some neighbors that it was being done and it was moved immediately I believe over by the glass place on the comer. I think that is where they are right now, it was Mark's. Johnson: I don't know the fellows name it was Signs Inc. or something like that. Any questions, any further questions? Anyone else from the public? Dick did you have some final comments? Schrandt: Just to answer some of the comments that were made by Mr. Zabala we have already addressed that there will be additional landscaping provided on the south side of that building. The agreement or the arrangement that we have with the Ada County Highway District is that there is not going to be unlimited access off the back of that property. There is curb and gutter going to be provided there as well as only 2 40 foot cut outs for access to that property. there will be some wall mounted lighting at the back of that building but our design allows for that to be pointed down ward so it does not shine out onto the road at all, we have that on our other buildings now and it works very effectively in preventing any kind of glare that shines out into any kind of traffic or any adjacent properties. The truck traffic that was mentioned is very over stated, we only have a truck that comes to our store during normal business hours, it comes, the most we would ever see a truck at a store would be once a day and again that would be during normal business hours. We send our own truck to the store once a week again during normal business hours. There aren't an blaring horns and dazzling lights at night. This is a very clean retail store, there is nothing toxic or noxious about our product mix or anything that we put in our yards. There is no external noise in the equipment that we use, our forklifts are the only thing that runs around outside and those are propane fueled so they are very quiet. As far as contamination due to water, I am not sure where that would come from, again our products are not contaminated, not toxic. All water run off will be contained on the property according to code and arrangements that we have already made. Hepper: Would you address the fencing that they mentioned? Schrandt: We have fencing all the way around our yard, our property in our design. In addition to the fencing there is screening from trees and shrubbery all the way around the property too. Hepper: Would this include that strip across the back of the building that didn't show on the map? Schrandt: Yes, the fencing comes around part way and then like I mentioned before we will be providing more landscaping across the back of that store. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 57 Hepper: Would the fencing be included with that landscaping across the back of the store? Schrandt: No fencing, I am not sure what the fencing would accomplish. Hepper: More or less a screen for the residents, I assume the residence is just opposite the store. Schrandt: No, the residence is off (inaudible) there is nothing behind the store itself. Hepper: Although someday there could be, the general ideas that it would probably be high density housing that would be the normal transition from commercial to residential. Whether it happens or not we don't know. I don't know, I don't personally feel that a 6 foot fence across the back of there is not an unreasonable request. Schrandt: If the requirement is that there be some screening we will provide whatever screening is necessary. Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else, any further comments? I will close the public hearing then. I see the attorney has already prepared preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law, what is your position Mr. Crookston with respect to acting on these in light of the testimony? Crookston: (Inaudible) Johnson: We need a motion. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the preliminary findings of fact and conclusions be amended to reflect the testimony tonight and specifically addressing the screening of the Wilson Lane side of the development. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we amend the preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law that have been prepared to reflect the testimony, any pertinent presented this evening, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: It was your intent that those have to re -drawn or amended? 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 58 Rountree: They have to be amended. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION 5, 6, AND 7 BY B.W. INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite a representative for Danbury Fair subdivision to come forward. Dan Torfin, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Torfin: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission the application before you tonight contains a request for annexation and zoning, and preliminary plat approval for the 3 parcels that are shown on this map over here on the easel. These parcels are located adjacent to the existing developed and developing Danbury Fair subdivision which is designated as R-8 zoning. The parcel to the lower left is designated as phase 5, it contains 33 lots on 10.4 acres. That is also designated as an area for urban development on the comprehensive plan, it is located on a collector street adjacent to a potential green belt area. The highest and best use for property with those classifications would be for multi -family and high densities, we are proposing single family that is compatible with the surrounding area including existing homes to the west across the Five Mile Drain. We are proposing a pocket park, it is the green area in that middle block that will be developed with playground equipment. Sewer and water services will be extended to serve this project. Access will be through the existing Danbury Fair subdivision through a street that is currently scheduled to be constructed sometime in November. No development would occur in that area until that street was extended. Like I said this phase is adjacent to the Five Mile Creek which is a potential greenbelt area. We are contemplating preserving access for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation district along the Five Mile Creek. There is approximately 15 to 18 feet of an existing road that they have. We are also proposing that area could be developed as a green belt or a pathway, a multi -use pathway which in my mind that is probably a gravel pathway, we are talking bicyclist and possibly equestrians and walkers. We would like, if we develop that as a pathway we would like to make sure the City of Meridian would take over ownership and maintenance of that pathway that could be incorporated into a master pathway system for you as things develop along the creek. Phase 6 which is the piece over to the east side and it fronts on Locust Grove contains 73 lots. It is on 18.93 acres. We have modified that area based on some requirements from ACHD and I would like to hand out a new 8 112 by 1 copy that shows the stub streets. One to the north, we have been approved by the Ada County Highway District subject to providing a stub street to the north as shown in the northeast comer of the phase 6. And the main reason for that was there is a parcel of ground between our project and another project that is proposed to the north and it is kind of a narrow deep piece and they are concerned about access for that parcel. The City of Meridian has a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 59 requirement that blocks lengths will not exceed a thousand feet. We have put the stub street in at this location and we still have, if you interpret the block length from the stub street to the northwest comer we are still over 1000 feet, if that is in fact the interpretation in your ordinance we would see a variance from the City Council when and if we get to that level. We are also proposing an access from this #6 phase to a park that is proposed in phase 3 that will be developed in the spring of 1995. We also, while we are talking about a park if I could point it out, in this area right here in phase 1 which contains a basketball court and play ground equipment I would like to give you a hand out on that. (Inaudible) They are, these parks are owned and maintained by the homeowners association and have provided in the developed phases recreation opportunities for the residents of Danbury. We have received a favorable comments from the homeowners in the subdivision. Phase #7 which is the northerly portion in the small culdesac was included within the original preliminary plat of Danbury Fair. We are constructing a veterinary clinic just north of that parcel and went through a rezone that required us to go back through the process and include some R-8 property that was rezoned and was previously approved by the City Council. It contains 12 lots on 3.07 acres. It is adjacent to commercial and the green area is a buffer that is proposed to be installed in conjunction with the development of the vet clinic. The Danbury Fair Subdivision is an entry level subdivision, it is a transitional zone surrounded by some heavier commercial and industrial uses. We are heavily, strongly involved in the architectural control of the subdivision, we are kind of proud of the subdivision, the location and what we have been able to accomplish as far as the looks of the homes and the quality of the subdivision. I would like to hand out a couple of pictures to you. We feel like Danbury is one of the quality entry level housing subdivisions in the area. We accomplished that by a strong architectural control committee. We require all homes to have brick, in many cases we have gone back and made the builders do, put more brick on if it doesn't seem adequate. We require everything to be approved and strong control on fences and colors. And we feel like we are doing a good job on that. like 1 said we are in a transitional area, primarily in a mixed planned use area where there are other developments and other things that are happening out there other than residential. We are requesting R-8 zoning for this property with the 1100, 1200 and 1300 square foot homes. We are not allowing anything under 1100 square feet. I would like to show you this map and this map shows, this is the vicinity right here and to the north of us is some commercial uses that are under construction right now. To the northeast we have the auto salvage yard, these are our neighbors, over here to the east we have a tool manufacturing plant. This would be across a field that was proposed for some development, high density residential and industrial, across from them we have the (inaudible) plant. This parcel over here to the south (inaudible) homes that are compatible with what we have developed. They are older homes, they are probably 15, years old and probably of the similar size. This is another neighbor right across the creek from us, the creek lies right here. This is another home in the area and also along the west boundary of this development we have apartments, high density. So we feel strongly 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 60 that in order to compete and in keeping with what we have done at Danbury so far we need to have the R-8 zoning and be able to build the 1100, 25% would be 1100 square foot, 25% - 1200, and then 50% would be 1300 and above. Regarding, we received a letter from Dan Mabe of the School district indicating that his original letter submitted to the City was in error and that they did not require a site in this area and that they felt like with the bond election and some other schools that they have planned that they could adequately serve without a school in this area. I will introduce into the record a copy of that letter. As I stated previously, they feel that the school that they have planned in the Edgeview Subdivision off of Cloverdale will adequately provide some classroom space for this development, 118 lots this is probably a 3 to 5 year project so we are not talking about this subdivision coming on line all of a sudden. In fact we are building phase 4 of Danbury right now. Which contains 66 lots. The traffic plan for this subdivision has been approved by ACHD, their board of Commissioners approved this new preliminary plat of 5, 6, and 7 last week with the condition that we provide the stub streets. We are providing, we have 2 access points right now for the development which is Stonehenge to Pine and Stonehenge to Fairview in a circuitous route and you can see the existing streets depicted on there that link that all together. With the new development we are putting in a third access point out to Locust Grove and Locust Grove will be a major road that will be able to handle the additional traffic load even as it exists now we will widen it to meet ACHD's requirement. They have asked for 45 feet from center line. In addition to that another stub street is proposed in this location, ties into Atkins Lane which is an existing gravel road that can also provide another access point for the subdivision. When the preliminary plat for Danbury Fair was approved their was a stub street shown to this 18 plus acres and at that time we entered testimony on the preliminary plat that someday that street would go through and here we are now with plan for it. The land package had been put together but the farmer that farmed that ground didn't know (End of Tape). In the staff report for this project, the City Engineer is indicating that he would like to have the traffic analyzed. Ada County Highway District has not put that requirement on us and with 4 access points which is probably more access for a subdivision of this size than any that probably exist in Meridian to this degree, to major arterial roads. We feel like the analysis is complete, there was a traffic study completed when we went through the first time it was approved by ACHD. So we would like to have that requirement stricken. Back to the Five Mile Creek, we have just recently gone through an engineering analysis of the floodplain for the Five Mile Creek. I believe your Mayor and City Engineer have received correspondence from FEMA that modified the floodway and floodplain lines in this area. It was based on new data, the topography was in error and we showed through new topography that the floodplain didn't actually exist to the extent that was shown meandering through phases 3 and 4. It has now been pulled over, the floodway is totally in the channel of the Five Mile Creek and the floodplain line now runs right through here in phase 5 only of any of the Danbury property developed or proposed for development. Our plan for that is to remove that from the floodplain by means of fill and that is in that area somewhere around 3 to 6 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 61 inches and we have done that in the past. It is just a process with FEMA. In all actuality the road that the bike path is on is above that line, it is a highway spot and there is a little swell behind the access road that needs to be filled. Gary Smith, your City Engineer may be able to respond to the recent information received by FEMA. We have submitted covenants for this for the new phases, the master declaration which has been recorded. As we develop we just annex the additional phases to that, that is our plan. We are also proposing to provide pressurized irrigation, we are retro -fitting the existing phases and our design that we have right now and that we are completing getting the approvals on will service these future phases. That is about all I have, I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Johnson: Any questions of Dan? Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Bernadine Morgan, 1187 East Fairview, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morgan: Where the #7 is on the map there is our property and we look into 14 back yards. Would there be any possibility that we could have that side fenced please. Johnson: How much acreage do you have their? Morgan: About 5 Johnson: Is there just one home on it? Morgan: Yes (inaudible) and across the back it is 14 backyards. Everything that you don't want to put in the front you put in the back. We have young people from Danbury subdivision cutting across our place. We have horses in there in the summer time and we don't want anyone to get hurt. That is it. Johnson: I appreciate your comment, thank you. Anyone else? Melinda Harper, 1004 North Scrivner Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Harper: I have friends that live in the Danbury Fair development and I commend the developer on the phases so far, they are very attractive. I have no qualms there, since you get sarcastic as it gets later I will make it quick. One thing, there is a lot of trash and debris that is created during construction and this is nothing new to anybody. I know that when my house was being built that houses around me were being built I could tell you every day what every construction crew worker had for lunch because I picked it up. I am hoping that there will be dumpsters that will be supplied and hopefully mandated for the builders to use. And although many people may not think about it I hope their are portable 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 62 toilets please because I get tired of people doing it in public. There are safety hazards, lots of nails and things laying around and children love construction sites, so I hope that is considered. I am trusting and I hope that there will be lighting that is good and safe and yet is not offensive for those of us who live behind. Traffic, there is a big problem of traffic and it is increasing and I have sat here tonight and so far there are 4 developments coming up that will be affecting Locust Grove, Layne, D & B, Bedelco and now Danbury. So I am hoping that traffic is addressed and I would like to see that road, you are saying there will be a setback and I know that road is going to be widened eventually, I would like to see the traffic speed on that road diminished to 25 miles per hour because there are children on that road and as these houses are coming on line there will be more children. Buffering, I do see that you have some buffering and it certainly looks nicer than what we have, I won't say anything there. I hope that ordinances are observed and as it starts getting darker even though the nights tend to be longer in the summer that the builders who are there will at least take us into consideration and not putting on a roof at 12:00 o'clock at night. As for a gravel pathway, that sounds really nice, it would be nice to have a gravel pathway with bikes and walking, I hope there is a restriction so that motorized vehicles are not allowed. Thank you. Johnson: Thank Melinda, anyone else? Dan would you come up we have a couple of questions for you and you probably have a couple comments you want to make. One thing, the question regarding the fence up by the numeral 7 there is that a possibility, is anything planned for that? Torfin: Typically what we have done and I think for the most part along the Morgan's boundary with exception of maybe one parcel the homeowners have fenced. Johnson: That has been the trend. Torfin: That is what we, if we are up against a ditch than we will. Johnson: There is no ditch there. Torfin: No, the ditch comes in and goes this way. Johnson: It is not in your covenants they have to fence though? Torfin: No Johnson: The photograph you gave us of the basketball court is that a photograph of what is there now? • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 63 Torfin: Yes, that is the most northerly part and then we have this park down here which is nearly double that size and then the park here which is (inaudible) a basketball court in the northerly one and playground equipment and grass and pathways and it (inaudible). The people like to have those near their homes so they can watch their kids from their kitchen windows and they are positive. Johnson: Are you aware of the petition that the City has received signed by some 18 or so individuals opposing this project? Torfin: Yes, we have seen it, 1 make my point again that we are compatible with what they have on that side. 1 think, it seems like the issue was losing the wildlife habitat and it is a field of weeds right now with an irrigation road access along it. There (inaudible) inside the channel but for the most part, I may have some pictures. I can show you what (inaudible) I guess we like the birds and the bees and the animals as much as all of these people on the other side, they, if you can see in the picture those developments have come right to the bank so there is not room for access along there and there is no (inaudible) area at all. We are proposing to maintain a 15 to 18 foot area for a gravel pathway. I don't' think it necessarily needs to have sod down the side of it, maybe windflowers or some other type vegetation that provides a cover and a corridor for the bids along there. Johnson: Have you had any meetings with any people that object to the, I believe on Cathy Lane? Torfin: No I have not, I just received the staff report Monday and haven't really had a chance to address it. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Tim Hepper. We just had a subdivision just north of where that 6 is (inaudible) right above that we had a piece there that adjoins the salvage yard there. We had lots of testimony from residents in Danbury Fair that wanted us to keep that at 1300 square feet. If I remember right we did except for those pieces of property that were on the northern edge that were adjoining the salvage yard we allowed them to go with the smaller footage homes, but the balance of those homes was required to be 1300 square feet and that was mainly because of concerns of the residents in Danbury Fair. Torfin: I will tell you that in Danbury right now, 50% of the homes that are 1100 and 1200 square feet and you probably weren't hearing from people that couldn't afford 1300 square foot house. If you look at these houses that I have given you, from the outside the 1300 and the 1100 look a lot the same. There is a little bit difference in price. And in this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 64 transitional zone and given the surroundings if we had to build 1300 or larger everyplace north of Locust Grove requires 1300 or larger we couldn't compete for one thing and we are also trying to provide an area where there is a transition in these mixed uses to allow for some of these entry level homes. A 1300 is an entry level also, but the 1100 and 1200 are important to a lot of people. It is the difference from them being able to get into a home or living in an apartment. I think if we eliminate that, especially in this area, you will see us back, or see other people back proposing apartments because it is astronomical the cost to get into a house anymore. So, I think with the mix we are proposing 50% to be 1300 we are not proposing anything less than an 1100, we have a lot of people that live in there that is the difference for them to be able to get into a home. And they are nice homes. Hepper: First of all everything north of Fairview on Locust Grove is 1350 or bigger, a lot of them are going to 1400 now. I don't think we are passing anything that is (inaudible) so if you had 13001 don't think we have any subdivision in Meridian that we passed lately that we allowed 1300 so you would still have an edge on the market. Torfin: I think there are still quite a few homes, unplatted lots north of Locust Grove that can build a 1300, 1350, 1 think they are almost the same thing as far as 50 more square feet in a home. 1 don't think it pencils out, if you had the option of going here or going north you would probably go north given the manufacturing concerns and the commercial concerns and the traffic. I say that, we want to be able to compete and we are business and we want to compete, but also there is a need and that need is going to travel west to Canyon County as there are no more affordable lots in Meridian or anywhere else. Hepper: I feel if Canyon County wants 1100 foot houses they can have them, personally I really don't feel that the residents in Meridian want 1100 foot houses. I realize from an economic standpoint as a builder, because I am a builder that 1100 foot houses economically sell a lot better and there is a need for them. With the growth that Meridian has got I don't' necessarily feel that the people of Meridian want 1100 foot houses in Meridian. Torfin: 1 don't know what the numbers are. Hepper: It is just an opinion thing, I think a 1300 square foot house you would still have an edge on the market because everyone else is required to have something a little bigger. Most of them are going bigger than that, beyond that anyway, they are going 1400, 1500 square feet. Torfin: As a builder do you see a lot of those larger homes not moving though in Meridian? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 65 Hepper: Yes, because of the interest rates, just recently before that we were selling them as fast as we could build them. As soon as the interest rate went up then everything came to a screeching halt. Torfin: And we are faced with that too, so everything like that will cause us problems. guess I disagree if you can go north and build a 1350 or in a 1400 you would probably do that and I would just ask that you give us consideration given the area in which we are located and the things that are proposed at Locust Grove, the existing uses. Hepper: Would you be willing to compromise on the square footage, they have a requirement I think it is 10% 1100 and 20% for 1200 square feet, would you be willing to compromise and go 30% 1200 square feet and then the rest bigger or something like that? Torfin: We have already eliminated the 1000 square so we are not proposing that first step in there, 1100 is the bottom. I feel like we are compromising and we wanted to make that step to keep the quality up in the subdivision and that was a compromise and we carry that throughout all the other phases of the Danbury Fair. Johnson: We have to move this along, we are running into tomorrow. Anything else? Is there anyone else before 1 close the public hearing? Dennis Baker, 250 South Beechwood, Suite 120, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Baker: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, due to the late hour I just wanted to make a thank you for your indulgence and would like to make one comment as the developer of Danbury. I am also the developer of several other subdivisions over the last 25 - 27 years in the area here and Island Woods is one of them, I address myself to Island Woods as one of the ones where we had a lot of environmental issues. As to this petition that was addressed talking about repairing an area along the Five Mile Creek. With our environmental experts the environmental engineer Mr. Gebhardt and his wife Joyce Gebhardt botanist (inaudible) as we looked into all of this along the river and the (inaudible) north and south channels which are on the actual island of Eagle Island what we found was it was incompatible to have pedestrian traffic up and down a green belt area along the river and still protect the (inaudible) and the wildlife areas. If we are going to have a path and green belt along Five Mile then you don't need to expect that you are going to have (inaudible) wildlife area in that area. The biggest single detraction to bald eagles for wintering and the biggest single detraction to wildlife along the rivers is pedestrian traffic and not living close to the river. It is the pedestrian traffic, this is not Dennis Baker speaking this is documentation by way of studies that have been done on Eagle habitat and other wildlife habitats. I think you might consider that in your considerations and your findings of fact. We really also feel on the density issue that we 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 66 would like to hold to the densities that we are asking for with the area to the east of us across Locust Grove in an industrial range for commercial industrial, allowing from some residential. I don't' think you are going to find much residential mixing too much in there with the industrial commercial unless it is extremely carefully monitored as to how you put your industrial commercial next to your residential. It would have to be very carefully monitored. So we have the industrial on the north of us on the east and on the south of us and we have an older neighborhood on the west of us not in the best of condition. We ask that you consider us as we have submitted to you tonight. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Baker. Is there anything else? I will close the public hearing at this time. We need findings of fact prepared on this. Shearer: I move we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and second that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for Danbury Fair Subdivision 5, 6, and 7, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: Johnson: Is there a representative for the JLG Builders? Joe Glaisyer, 3955 North Cowboy Lane, Star, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glaisyer: Gentlemen, I am back again requesting for annexation on a piece of parcel that is located off of Locust Grove with approximately 5 acres and I am requesting, originally I asked for 40 units, and because we had some testimony by some neighbors who felt the density was too high we have re-evaluated that decision and I thought we could make the project be economically feasible at 36 units, and that is what I have proposed for you today. I believe you have all the information as required, to my knowledge that was given to you prior to the last meeting but somehow it didn't get passed along. At any rate I think you have everything you need here now. I know it is late and there are several other people that want to testify for and against. So other than that I would just entertain any questions you might have. Johnson: Thanks Joe, any questions of Mr. Glaisyer? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 67 Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: If I fall asleep during this wake me up will you. I need some clarification I guess because when I was here at the first public hearing before it was asked to be tabled I was under the understanding there were 20 units and now he is asking for 36. So I thought it was being doubled in size. Johnson: I think we are looking at duplexes, that is what the application says. Brian: So if we are starting the process all over again I guess I better go over my list on them on all of the things I would like to see done, like fencing and water monitoring and we still haven't' gotten any clarifications as far as, I have a meeting Friday with Ada County Highway District and the people are developing the shopping center on the corner discussing the water and the ditch and the highway system. So I guess we will find out then what we are going to do with the ditch that has been eliminated that feeds that property. I imagine it is going to have to be pressurized irrigation. That is one of my concerns on what is going to happen to the ditches out there. Of course we discussed the fencing, and the fencing he agreed to put the fencing up before he started construction to keep the trash enclosed inside. When I first gave testimony to this project I thought it was 20 lots and 20 units, I guess I was under the wrong assumption. I said that at that time I stated they sure could be a worse development but from what I hear now it sounds like it is a lot worse development. I am going on record as being opposed to it. Do you have any questions? Johnson: As I recall Don that was, correct me if I am wrong Wayne, it was 20 lots and they were all duplex townhouses. So it would be 2 units per lot for 40 was the original. (Inaudible) Johnson: Is that right, now we have eliminated 4 units which would be 2 units. Brian: So it is a smaller development? Johnson: It is smaller than it was only in terms of units, it is the same amount of land. Two landscape lots and 36 building lots, 18 duplexes. Brian; I am opposed to this project, thank you very much. Eric Anderson, 2107 North Zircon Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: I have some grave concerns about the density of this, if you notice the houses 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 68 to the south of here, there seems to be basically 4 to the south side and you look into Gem Park where I live, there are 9 total and there are 2 on the other side and here we are we seem to be going away with the trend that is going on in that area. I sit on a 1/3 acre lot but I don't know how far back from the lot line these houses would have to sit. I would assume they are probably going to be 15 feet off of my back fence. So to me there is a privacy issue going on here with this density and the noise. Johnson: Do you recall your lot number? Anderson: I am number 5 in Gem Park, the corner one. I also have another concern wit the water pressure that has been going on with all of the development out in that area. There have been times at 5:00 at night that I turn on my sink and get no water which is becoming a little ridiculous for the last 2 years. I have pop up sprinklers that do not come up any more because of no water pressure in the area. I have daughter now that is 2 years old who can't go to the school that is a block away from us because it is full. I am looking at what we are packing in here and can't believe what is going on with this. This to me is not following the same sort of density that is going on with cougar Creek and the other ones that are being built around us. There is going to have to be probably a lot more traffic going out on Locust Grove with these 36 tucked in there, you figure 2 cars per house and as far as the first time this came I had never been notified at all about this. T his is all becoming quite a surprise to quite a few of us. The plot height right now between Gem Park and what they are proposing varies anywhere from about 4 1/2 feet in the center of Gem Park clear down to my end which is probably 2 - 2 1/2 feet. So I have some interest in what they are going to do with that land. If they plan on raising it up. Whether there are 2 story buildings, 3 story buildings (inaudible) what is going to be built and how they look then into our backyards. The current houses that sit in Gem Park sit at least 40 feet off of those back fences due to an easement. Mine sits closer to 55 feet so we have quite a deep back yard at that point. If these houses are going to be stacked up against there I think a lot of us in those area feel we are going to lose a lot in property values. I am really opposed to this density, I don't think it follows the flow of the neighborhood that surrounds it. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Kathleen Coulter, 2095 North Amethyst, was sworn by the City Attorney. Coulter: My lot is lot 27, it directly backs this project. The only thing I can say about it is it is stupid. For one thing the street doesn't even look as big as the other streets. I don't know if they have had to file with Ada County about the size of the street because it does not look, 1 don't think it was when I was at the Meridian City Council meeting when they first brought this up. It seemed to me the street as I recall was smaller and the easements 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 69 were less because there was not enough room. And they had requested a variance and I don't know if that ever came about. I don't know the setback off of Locust Grove. I am very concerned like my neighbors with the placement of the houses, now you yourself Mr. Hepper had just said about the size of the houses, 1300 square foot, 1100 square foot. If you are going to pack 18 houses per site, they have got to be less than 1100 square feet. Now my house is almost 2200 square feet on a big lot and I am very concerned about the property value to my lot and to my neighbors lot. Again, this is poor planning, a gentlemen earlier in testimony in another public hearing said that you need to look at the whole area and this is a part of the whole area that wasn't looked at years ago. It seems like it would have (inaudible) if the developer of Gem Park would have bought the subdivision when he was developing the subdivision and bought that 5 acres and just extended it down. Then it would flow easier well that was not done and now we are in this. My water pressure, I have none, just like the gentleman that just testified. There are times in the day when I try to tum my water on and if someone else is watering I get barely a trickle out of my kitchen faucet. If someone is trying to take a shower or bathe well heaven help getting any water (inaudible). My lawn is dry in certain areas because there is no water to water the lawn, sprinklers don't even pop up any more. And you want to put 36 more houses in here. Johnson: Who wants to put? Coulter: Okay they want to put, it just seems like whatever is proposed anymore in Meridian is just automatically passed and signed and it is going to be developed, developed. I think it is time to pull back from development and let's get some wells. Let's plan. I just don't think the wells in the area are going to be sufficient enough to handle this many people. I don't' think the traffic patter is going to be able to handle 2 cars which is 72 cars coming in and out of there. If each unit has 2 cars per family. 1 am very concerned about the setback and the easement against the back once those go in there are they going to be within 5 feet of my fence and looking down into my backyard. Obviously they are going to have to be 2 story and l am concerned with our privacy. That is about all. Johnson: Thank you David Baley, 870 North Linder, was sworn by the City Attorney. Baley: I wanted to come up and address a couple issues that they have talked about here and there may be some mis-communication about what we are doing. There are 36 lots noted on the plat with 2 landscape lots and those are non -buildable lots that provide frontage onto Locust Grove. We have met with the Highway District on this plan and we have met all the requirements as far as the 45 feet from Locust Grove. It turns out that area in there is actually a restriction of Locust Grove through there, and the improvements 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 70 that we will construct on the frontage there will actually improve the traffic through that area. Locust Grove is designated as a minor arterial. In that manner it is a good place for higher density development in that the traffic pattern does flow better, there are some problems with restriction in that area that need to be improved and this certainly helps that. On the street width due to the narrowness of the lot in here, and I wanted to mention also this is an in fill project in that yes it should have been planned for 10 years but maybe that developer didn't' have the money or whatever it was at the time. This project will fill a blank area in there and there is existing sewer and there is a question about the water which hasn't' been resolved yet but that is something we will work with the City to get through to see what needs to be done to provide this with water and not reduce the capacity of water to the surrounding subdivisions. The street width we are proposing a 46 foot right of way in there which has been approved by the Ada County Highway District, within that 46 foot right of way we put a 36 foot street section and 5 foot sidewalks which are. Johnson: That is wider than the original proposal right? Belay: The original proposal, I don't have it in front of me but I believe that in the original proposal we did have a 40 foot Johnson: We are trying to help you here. Baley: In any case we are proposing a 36 foot street section there which is a standard street, that is what all of the streets are and a 5 foot sidewalks adjacent to the street there and on Locust Grove in that area. The variance of the 46 feet gives us room in order to keep the building more towards the street and still allow the 20 foot setback. There will still be room for parking in the driveways and 2 car garages on each. Those are single story units that are going to be going in there and when Steve Jensen gets up here he can tell you the exact size of them. They are duplex units, each has 2 car garage and they are single story units. Johnson: Are they all about 800 square feet? I see the application shows 800 square feet that is where I got that, that is why I asked that question. (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: Anyway what is the minimum square footage? Baley: The minimum square footage is 1228 square feet. Hepper: Would those be single story or 2 story? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 71 Baley: Single story buildings. I do want to be quick about this, I wanted to address a couple of issues in the staff report here. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has a comment in there about 60 foot right of way for the Jackson Drain and how that encroaches on this property. There is a 50 foot easement to the north and that is why there are all those big back yards in Gem Park Subdivision, there is already a 50 foot easement there. There are no easements of record on this property and I am sure we would be happy to provide them a 10 foot easement in the back to create their full 60 feet at that point but there is no easement of record for that Jackson Drain associated with this property. And there are also some comments in the staff report from the city engineer that indicate that they didn't' get the conceptual engineering plan that was submitted and there are some questions about what is on that plan. I think that the plan we submitted was substantially in accordance with the code on that and I will need to get back with the City engineer and the Planning Director to find out what we missed on there. There were 2 plans submitted one was a preliminary plat and the other was a conceptual engineering plan. I would be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Hepper: Would these be built as duplexes or townhouses? Belay: They will be built as townhouses. Each unit will be sold separately. Hepper: Each one will have a separate power meter, water meter? Belay: Yes Hepper: Fire walls between the units? Belay: Right that is correct. And the minimum lot size in this zone is 4250 square feet for the lot size and we are meeting that minimum lot size. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you. Steve Jensen, 1420 W. Washington Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jensen: Thank you, I know it is late, I will try to be brief as I can. 1 think the first thing that 1 would like to re-emphasize here is that this definitely is an in fill type project. It is unfortunate that this particular piece of ground was not provided in the existing subdivisions, we have Gem Park to the north, Meridian Place to the west and Carol Subdivision to the south of this parcel. It is basically landlocked with those surrounding subdivisions. It is certainly not the intent of the developer to put in a subdivision here that is going to devalue anybody's property and we would like to stress right off that this is a single level unit, it is designated or targeted for a senior citizen market, it hasn't been 2 1/2 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 72 weeks since it appeared in the Idaho Statesman that the City of Meridian has no senior citizen type developments and really has a lack of any kind of senior citizen type housing. What we have done with these projects in the past we found that 75% of the units do sell to senior citizens, the remaining 25% of the units normally sell to single adults or to married adults with no children. We have a plan here that has full 2 car garages, with some fairly heavy restrictions as far as the use of those dwellings and the types of animals if any that will be provided for there. There are 6 foot privacy fencing going around the entire exterior of that property, and then everybody's individual backyards will be privacy fenced as well. As the engineer stated the Gem Park to the north, the closest that any of those people are to the property line is 50 feet and likewise with Carol subdivision to the south we are meeting all the minimum setback requirements of a 20 foot front setback and a 15 foot rear setback throughout this development. I do have copies of the plans, I would be happy to show anybody that would be interested, the building plans. Like I said the smallest units is a 2 bedroom, 2 bath 1228 square foot unit with a 22 foot wide garage. It is a nice size unit and I mean in 2 bedrooms 1228 square feet is quite large. The 3 bedroom unit is a 1406 square foot unit with a 22 foot wide garage as well on the 3 bedroom unit. The subdivision restrictions will prevent anybody from parking vehicles or anything like that on the street or it requires that they garage their vehicles. We are trying to do a first class development here and fill a housing niche in the City of Meridian that nobody else to this point of time has made an attempt to fill. It is certainly not the intent of the developer to in any way negatively impact the surrounding property owners property. That is not what we are going to do here, we have done developments in the past similar to this one and that hasn't occurred in the past and it is certainly not the intent of the developer in this situation. Johnson: Have you done any of those recently and if so could you point us toward one? Jensen: The most recent one would be Silverton Park Subdivision in Boise just off of Boise Avenue and Law which was a 14 unit development just completed by the developer JLG Inc. less than a year ago. Johnson: Are you familiar with the development similar to this maybe a little more square footage, but not much the 8900 North Maple Grove, that is a situation very similar to what you are doing. A few less units but sandwiched in between a couple subdivisions and it is very nice. I thought maybe you were familiar with that one. Jensen: I am not familiar with that particular one, do you know it by name by chance? Johnson: It is called Juniper patio homes. Jensen: Yes, I am familiar with Juniper, this would be similar to that development. For Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 73 whatever, I have a rendering here, this is a rendering of the front of the building (End of Tape) pretty nice street lane, we have talked along the lines of an old fashioned street light pole to kind of alternate down the street, because that site is a difficult site. There is really no other way to develop in there other than the way the current developer has proposed it. So we thought if we alternated some street lights going down the sides of that street and this project is totally landscaped and fenced and delivered to the client. In other words underground sprinkler system is in and operating when they take over the property it is all maintained by a homeowners association, professionally maintained. The lawns, the homeowners association will provide for the re -painting and re -roofing of the units as it becomes necessary. It has the potential to be a full first class project and really fill a niche in the market place and given the alternatives of what might happen in that area for the surrounding neighbors which is the potential for apartments or whatever might come in there I think it is a reasonable alternative. We are not going to be looking into anybody's backyard with a single level unit. Those people with a 2 story unit might be looking into the backyards of these units. Like I say they are a minimum of 50 feet off their property line and we are 15 feet off the back property line of our property there. Johnson: Do your covenants specifically restrict rentals? Jensen: They don't' specifically restrict it no because there is really noway we can do that. In the price range that these would be at they would have to rent in the $900 to $1000 range to be economically viable. We don't' find very many people looking for rentals in that price range, that isn't to say that they wouldn't go, but if they were a rental they are going to be subject to the same restrictions. Everybody is going to have to garage their car, they are not going to be able to do anything that is going to adversely impact their other neighbors. That is what is so critical about this type of a development is that it does require that everybody live in substantially a similar manner but what we have is a senior citizen market out here and a single adult or a shall we say or a single woman with one child that has neither the need nor the desire nor the means to maintain a lawn but they want to live in a maintained area and want to have an ownership interest. So, we would like to think we are filling a niche there and I would hope that people would recognize it is not the intention of the developer to put anything other than a first class unit in there because it is not going to sell and we certainly don't' want to negatively impact the property values of anybody that is adjacent to this property. I think they would be pleasantly surprised if they took a look at the Silverton Park development off of Law Avenue and we also did a few years ago a project over in Caldwell that is probably one of the more desirable places in town to live at this point. If there are any questions I would be happy to try and answer them. Johnson: Any questions? Thank you, anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 74 origin of the project. I was one of the 2 original people that began looking into this particular piece of ground for really one major reason and that is we had discovered a demand for housing for senior people. We discovered that in 2 ways one through some research we did at the senior communities around Boise, very enthusiastic support for single level townhouses which just aren't being built. They are in a range that is affordable for seniors to buy and the second is a partner of mine and I we began looking further into townhouses in a very extensive townhouse survey and contacting many townhouse owners in the greater area, we found a very large need for single level townhouses. Many people owning 2 story townhouses that weren't able to live there wanted to move into single levels. Because of that we looked into this site and I talked to the City staff here initially and got a very positive response. I guess for 2 reasons, one they sense the same demand for this kind of housing for singles and for seniors. And also they felt like it would be a very desirable in fill project. They also said at that time that it seemed to be a pretty good fit because there would be typically seniors. I feel like Mr. Jensen's testimony is fairly accurate from the research we did, him mentioning the 75%, we have been very careful in looking at that because I am also in the real estate industry and trying to determine demand we are very careful about what we build so we can eventually market it. And so that would reduce the amount of traffic onto Locust Grove, also typically because we do find single people who purchase these we generally don't find 2 cars per unit and that also holds true for the seniors. There is also the argument and I know Mr. Glaisyer made of economic feasibility, when you have a site like this it has been sitting, I guess it is not technically land locked but in a sense if you consider Locust Grove as a barrier it really isn't a land locked piece. I want to speak highly of Mr. Glaiyser, I have seen his projects over the last few years, he does extreme quality work, 1 can speak very highly of the Silverton Park project in Boise and recommend you take a look there. And I also am a strong advocate of private property rights, I stand here with that testimony that I feel very strongly about that. I appreciate your efforts and time tonight. I would be happy to take any questions. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Stewart? Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jones: I am sure you all have a plot map, 1 live at Lot 9 which is one of the smaller lots in Carol subdivision directly south of this property. Currently Lot 8 is vacant and Lot 7 is occupied as well as Lot 4. A couple of concerns I have, have already been voiced at previous public hearings here and at the City Council meeting. And as well as other people here. First of all we should all know that the reason the developer is doing this project is the financial income just like all of us going to work Let's not look past that when we start thinking about the needs of the community. We need to know that the needs of the community are important and that the people in the neighboring neighborhoods 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 75 project is the financial income just like all of us going to work. Let's not look past that when we start thinking about the needs of the community. We need to know that the needs of the community are important and that the people in the neighboring neighborhoods position as well as comprehensive plan all needs to take effect in deciding what happens to this piece of property. First of all to make this as short as possible 1 would like to say that I am opposed to it on the grounds of density, as well as the difference in property values. You are talking lot sizes of 4000 square feet next to lot sizes of mine which is the smallest in the subdivision of 26,000 square feet others are an acre and a 112, 1 don't have that number off the top of my head, but quite a drastic change in the density ratio. If you notice on the map here there is I think 5 lots that are adjacent to the back of my property so 1 would have 5 units behind my place. I moved to the area to have a rural atmosphere and kind of moved out of a close tight neighborhood. Granted you never know what is going in behind you. That was one of the main reasons we moved into the area. Square footage of the homes, they talked about the square footage being around 1200, my home is 3000 square feet with a triple car garage. It is quite a drastic change there with property value I would estimate right at half of these proposed and I think that would pull my property down as well. If, and this is a strong if, but 1 think now is the time to put these recommendations in, I really don't feel like I ought to make recommendations because I feel like this project does not suit the particular needs of this area. But iffor some reason this project is proposed and accepted that the following things be considered. One that the square footage of the homes be increased to those minimum of 1350 to 1500 square feet. That, I don't' know what kinds of provisions are made that once this project is done or is completed or the economic times drop in the middle that they only get a few units up, what is going to happen with fully landscaping and etc., but that should be taken into consideration of this type of facility. When this was proposed originally they talked about it being a senior development and now we are talking that its 75% and 25% is the norm. If this went in 1 would like to see them make it a senior center like they are doing over off of Meridian Road. In order to do that though they have to have a senior recreation center and then they can designate it as a senior area. It would take some planning and some changing of what they have there, recreation facilities, park areas which there are none provided. I have a real concern with the setback, granted I have 50 feet from my back door to my back fence but I have 5 units that are 15 feet behind my fence, so I am a little concerned with that. Those are basically my biggest concerns, I would like to not see it happen but if it does those restrictions be based as well as no rentals, like Mr. Johnson said put it in the covenants. They do have it in other areas and it works and I would rather not see some rental property right there behind me, it would definitely detract from where we are at. Any questions? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Jones? Anyone else? Lane Mortsen, 2092 Sapphire Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 76 Mortsen: I am going to save everybody a lot of time 1 would just like to go on record that I am definitely opposed to this. I reiterate on the other opposed that were said before. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Does your property abut this? (Inaudible) Pat Sanford, 3510 West Tupolo Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sanford: As 1 said I own Lot 4 on Zircon, I am concerned about the property value. That is an investment property for me. I would like to go on record opposing this as proposed. I think the idea of making it a senior center makes a lot more sense if that indeed is the market they are after. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that hasn't addressed us yet? Kim Daniel, 2102 North Zircon, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daniel: I sat here for 4 hours and I agree and I oppose with this project and I agree with every thing that they have said. Number 1 is the water issue, I have heard 2 wells are going to be sucking in Meridian, and I have lived here for 3 years and I have heard this. This water issue has gone on for that long as long as I have lived here. The sprinkler system the same thing as the others. I just can't see anymore development until the water issue is taken care of. That is it. Johnson: We have drilled some new wells, you are aware of that right? Daniel: Where? Johnson: In Meridian, anyone else? Scott Dixon, 2137 Sapphire, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dixon: I don't border the back of the property, I am just a couple lots down. I am very concerned also about the property value, the water issue. Everything has been said and I wholeheartedly agree with all of it. So I will keep this short and just wanted to put it on record that is how I feel. Johnson: Thanks Scott, last call. Is there anything the developer or their associates would like to say in closing? I now close the public hearing, what would you like to do? 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 77 Rountree: I am not sure we remember at this point. Mr. Chairman, 1 move we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE: Johnson: Do we want to address this next item on the agenda or do that at some later date? Crookston: (Inaudible) Johnson: I would like a motion to that effect. Are these areas of the Comprehensive Plan you are making reference to? Crookston: (Inaudible) Johnson: And it is clear enough there what you want us to look at? Crookston: (Inaudible) Johnson: I have a question for you, how many people representing Planning and Zoning got involved in the process of reviewing this? Right, it would make our job easier if we could get in on the ground floor of this stuff once in a while. Crookston: (Inaudible) Johnson: Except you have originated something without our input. Shearer: 1 move we adjourn. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 11, 1994 Page 78 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:24 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: 0 M ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLE K • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BEDELCO BUSINESS AND LIVING CENTER BEDELCO, INC. REZONE APPLICATION NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 7 T. 3N., R. lE W1/2 NW1/4 SW 1/4 SECTION 8 T. 3N., R. lE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on October 11, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the Rezone Application was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That Mr. Forrey stated that this property is located FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page - 1 l within the City of Meridian and is owned by the Applicant's, E. L. Bews and Bert Smith, and which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned I -L Light Industrial; that the present use is for contract farming; that the Applicant's purpose is to have a potion of the property zoned R-15 Medium High Density Residential to allow for 120 manufactured housing sites and a portion of the site to remain in light industrial zoning to allow for business park development consisting of 28 lots; that the I -L zoning was placed on the property on or prior to 1979; that the industrial market has changed significantly since then; that small business parcels are needed next to affordable housing which makes this site ideal for a planned business and living center; that this project will help the transition from industrial to residential in the Old Town neighborhood. 3. That the subject parcel requested R-15 zone contains approximately 27 acres; that the parcel containing I -L zoning is 27 acres. 4. That the R-15 District and I -L District are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5. and 14. as follows: (R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi -family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 0 9 (I -L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I -L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 5. Even though R-15 zoning is requested, the Applicant lists the density as 4.4 as the density per acre on the Application for preliminary plat which was submitted in conjunction with this rezone request. 6. That the R-15 Zone requires a minimum of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit and 50 feet of street frontage; that Wayne Forrey stated that this R-15 request is for 60' wide lots with a minimum of 900 square feet per structure; that the price range will be from $73,000 to $77,000; that they may have detached garages; that they will be on foundations; that storage space will be provided for RV's, etc; that a neighborhood park along the Five Mile Creek will consist of 2.25 acres. 7. That the subject property has been solely used in the past as vacant ground or as agricultural ground with no development whatsoever. 8. That Applicants want three (3) conditions: (1) Development Agreement; (2) Development Review; and (3) Development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 11 Compliance Report; that thirteen (13) lots would be industrial and not commercial and are located on the perimeter; that walking paths will be provided as well as a pathway along the railroad. 9. That there was oral testimony 'to this rezone application, to wit: a. Paul McKague, who lives at 933 East Pine, testified that he objects to anything that is going to bring people onto his property; that the ditch is located inside the property line on his side; that it is an open ditch which belongs to Nampa & Meridian Irrigation and Bedelco proposes to develop a pathway along Five Mile Creek. b. Opal Farrington testified that she, too, is opposed for reasons of alleged increase in trash and traffic, and would rather see industrial or commercial, because the schools are already over crowded. C. Stephanie Churchman, a representative of Builders Masonry Products testified that Builders Masonry Products is opposed to the rezoning of an industrial property to residential; that Builders Masonry operates 10 hours daily and sometimes longer in the summer; that the hazards of noise levels, time restrictions, potential property damage and vandalism, will soon hinder our business. d. Melinda Harper, and Helen Sharp testified regarding a screening being provided to muffle noise and light. e. Dwaine Ward, representative of Treasure Valley Homes, stated he was in favor of manufactured housing; that probably 60-70% would be retired people. 10. That comments were submitted by the Meridian Fire Department, City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, the Meridian Planning Director, and the Ada County Highway District. All comments, are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. That the comments of the Planning Director were to adding FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page - 4 0 . a sectional location of map to the preliminary plat; showing the lots scaled dimensions; landscaped buffer should be provided along the westerly side of the property to screen adjacent low-density residential area from this development; all proposed or existing utilities including, but not limited to, storm and sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, water mains, fire hydrants, street lights, and their respective profiles need to be shown on the preliminary plat, that the adjacent platted and unplatted property needs to be properly labeled, that right-of- way and roadway widths need to be shown, that the Applicants submitted only a partial plat which shows revisions to the I -L area; that required changes should be submitted as a total revision so staff and agencies are not referencing various versions of the plat; that she recommended that the application be tabled and that the Applicant resubmit a complete preliminary plat addressing staff and agency concerns. 13. That comments concerning this application were made by Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to Gary Smith, City Engineer, that any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property be included in this platting and shall be tiled per City ordinance; that the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation district will need to approve the plans; that a determination of seasonal high ground water elevation needs to be made and a profile of the sub -surface soil conditions; that the preliminary plat map contour lines need to be tied to an established Benchmark; that 250 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required adjacent to the subdivision's entrances on FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page - 5 0 0 District; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. That the following comments are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, LAND USE, 3., industrial policies: 3.3 Access to industrial areas from collector and local streets will be discouraged. 3.4 Industrial uses adjacent to residential area should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. 3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 16. That pursuant to 11-2-416 L, the City may require a development agreement when property is rezoned. 17. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page - 7 0 0 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 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." 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 R-15 zoning would not be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan since the Plan states that industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses and since the Plan states that industrial uses should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities, placing a residential use next to an industrial zone likely could inhibit the development of the industrial uses. (b) The area is not intended to be rezoned in the future. (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning of R-15 as the Applicant has submitted a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 0 • E. Pine Avenue and N. Locust Grove Road; that a master street drainage plan which includes the method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district needs to be provided; that the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision name and street names needs to be submitted; that existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed, except wells that may be used for non-domestic purposes such as irrigation; that information detailing the traffic impact on existing or adjacent roadways & intersections needs to be submitted; that Lot 16 Block 3 and Lot 9 Block 4 are not considered "Flag Lots" and shall have a minimum street frontage of 40 feet measured on the chord; that Lot 19 & 22 Block 4 shall have a minimum street frontage of 50 feet; that any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the preliminary plat map need to be indicated and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries; that Applicant needs to submit the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for review; that all comments, are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That the comment from the Ada County Highway District regarding this application was a request to defer action on the preliminary plat; that the ACHD is in the process of resolving several access and alignment conflicts that may significantly impact the configuration of the plat; that comments were also received from the Meridian police and fire department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central district Health Department, Idaho Power and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 proposed subdivision plat of the entire area and it shows development to meet the requested rezoning of R-15, however, the entire area is now zoned light industrial and the R-15 development would not be compatible with the industrial zoning and probable uses. (d) There have been no recent changes in the area or adjacent area which dictate that the area requested to be rezoned should be so rezoned. (e) That the property, designed in an R-15 fashion and under R-15 requirements and limitations, is designed so as to be harmonious with the surrounding area; however, the R-15 zone is not compatible with the I -L zone. (f) The R-15 zone and its use would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood and should not be disturbing to the property owners in the adjacent residential areas, but the I -L industrial uses would not be compatible with the R-15 uses. (g) The property would be able to be adequately served with most public facilities. (h) The R-15 zone would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services but may be detrimental to the I -L industrial development since the industrial uses cannot create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. (i) The R-15 zone and developments should not involve a use detrimental to the existing residential area or the general welfare of the area, but the I -L industrial uses may involve uses that are detrimental to the R-15 uses. (j) Development in an R-15 fashion should not cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if developed as I -L. (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 to rezone the land to R-15 from I -L light industria is not in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. That it is concluded that the Application to rezone a portion of the property from I -L Light Industrial to R-15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 0 ! Residential should be denied. 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: HE�PER VOTED ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the Application for rezone from I -L Light Industrial to R-15 Residential should be denied. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page - 10 >I '' I J l l I � , �• u � -z I � • I I . � � I � _ •. II i 44 e CAM, O G rl,� i' - •. ,t F .f- �" ♦ �0 1 I .I i . II[J�h . 4 CO • I •• i� . N s a *riit Id 1 e •r •�i ` I •I• I 1 11ff7 i. V , 1 �'' ! i` ' . j lj 1 '�''`�o ,;'��+ �I —`- • I / Fi�\i'� •�� 11 -i 1 �EI', I I��.1 I I , �" •,Ly Q V ,,, .� O � • .0 •� �4 a � 0 MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policies that help shape the Bedelco Business and Living Center • Goal 4: To provide housing opportunities for all economic groups within the community. • Economic Development - Housing Goal Statement 3.1U Approve quality housing projects that meet the needs of all economic levels. • Economic Development - Housing Goal Statement 3.2U Encourage efforts to develop and maintain quality neighborhoods and housing which are recognized as basic infrastructure requirements of economic development. • Land Use Goal Statement 1.5U Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable, stable and self-sufficient community. • Land Use Goal Statement 3.11 Zoning and development within each of the Industrial Review Areas should be analyzed to ascertain if there are potential problems or conflicts which would hinder the development of these areas by private industrial and business interests. • Land Use Goal Statement 3.14 The character, site improvements and type of light industrial developments should be harmonized with the residential uses in this area. • Economic Development Goal Statement 4AU Help existing small businesses expand employment and marketing opportunities. Page I 0 0 MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policies that help shape the Bedelco Business and Living Center • Housing Goal Statement 1.3 An open housing market for all person, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background, shall be encouraged. • Housing Goal Statement 1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged. • Housing Goal Statement The City of Meridian shall ensure that no discriminatory restrictions are imposed by local codes and ordinances. • Neighborhood Identity Goal Statement 6.8U Adopt land -use designations which will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels within neighborhoods. • Neighborhood Identity Goal Statement 6.9U Establish strategies for low- and moderate -income housing opportunities, including neighborhood area plans, senior housing, and specialized housing needs. • Neighborhood Identity Goal Statement 6.11U Promote well-planned and well-designed affordable housing in all Meridian neighborhoods. Page 2 Backed by a forty -year-old company that builds over 10,000 homes a year, Champion Homes, along with its sister subsidiaries, has constructed over a half -million homes for an estimated one million people since 1953. Compare our high-quality construction against any manufactured or site -built home. Quality Construction Solid 2x6 exterior -wall studs and 2x6 (minimum) solid -feeling floor joists placed 16" apart and secured transverse to steel basement - type 1 -beams for extra strength. Proven, load -tested, roof -rafter system for reliable, structural strength against wind and snow loads. Fire-resistant and sound -deadening drywall interior wall paneling, similar to site -built homes. Drywall is heavier and thicker than standard plywood paneling. Attractive, fire-resistant and sound deadening drywall ceilings, without unsightly, visible fasteners. Thick insulation with impressive R -values in exterior walls, roof and floor for low-cost heating and cooling. This energy-saving fiberglass and blown wool insulation is placed behind moisture -fighting vapor barriers in the walls and roof. Extra -insulation packages available. Name -brand range, refrigerator, water heater, furnace and building materials for extra dependability and safety. Deluxe kitchen sink with convenient double wells and streamlined range hood with convenient built- in exhaust fan for work light. Large, glamorous bathroom(s) designed for convenience and easy upkeep. Convenient utility area in most models for optional washer and dryer. Professionally designed and color coordinated decors, including stylish curtains, draperies and wall paneling. Fashionable carpeting or no -wax vinyl floor coverings over solid sub -floor. Vaulted ceilings (standard or optional) in many rooms for extra spaciousness. Attractive Exterior Amenities Distinctive roof design and attractive, weather - resistant hardboard exterior siding. Dependable underlayment between shingles and wood sub -roof, when offered, for extra weather protection. Large, easy -operating windows with screens and optional storms (storm windows required in certain states). Safety light at each entrance. Safety Quaranteed Smoke detectors in bedroom areas. All -copper 15/20 AMP electrical circuitry protected Designed to all Federal Safety and Construction by easy -use circuit breakers. Standards. (See verifying HUD -Code seal on Non -corrosive water lines and large heat ducts in home's exterior.) insulated cavities under floor for extra weather Over 300 items in each home are checked by in - protection. plant inspectors and double-checked by our Superior Interior Design thorough quality -control system. Step -saving, custom kitchen with easy upkeep mar- Strong, one-year limited warranty. (Ask your retailer for a printed copy.) and heat -resistant countertops and beautifully designed custom cabinetry with spring -hinged doors and easy -glide drawers. __�7 Idaho Built Champion Home Builders Co. P.O. Box 190 1442 Sunnyside Rd. June, 1994 Weiser, ID 83672 tis, Series A (208) 549-1410 /' C Biv. a- if 2- nt , OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY TOM ZABALA Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Thomas M. Zabala. I am an architect and principal in the firm of Zabala Giltzow Albanese, Chartered. My office is located at 815 Park Boulevard, Suite 350 in Boise. In the past, I had the pleasure to serve ten years on the Planning and Zoning and Design Review Commissions for the City of Boise. I am here this evening, along with J. Frederick Mack, representing Barbara Myall. We have had the opportunity to review the site development plans for this project and have some concerns that we would like to share with you this evening. We request that conditions be added to any recommendation for approval by this body to the City Council to insure that this project is developed in accord with the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan so that it is harmonious with the intended character of the general neighborhood and future land uses. As designed, landscaped buffers are proposed along the entire north, east, west and a portion of the south property lines. Immediately fronting Mrs. Myall's property there is presently indicated approximately 477 linearfeet of unbuffered, unlimited access frontage. This back area is indicated as the applicant's loading dock, service drive and refuse area with unobstructed vehicular access along its entire length. There is no indication of exterior lighting but one can assume that there will be wall -mounted units directed toward the street for security as well as early morning/late evening operations. Trucks and other vehicles will be here on a continual basis with their lights on, motors running, doors slamming, etc. Wilson Road will not be developed as a major commercial or retail access road. It is conceivable that the highest and best use for Mrs. Myall's property will be zoning that allows for limited office or medium to high density residential uses. The applicant's current proposal creates dangerous, injurious, noxious and otherwise objectionable conditions which would adversely affect the surrounding areas and is not in the best interests of the City of Meridian. We request that your recommendation for approval include conditions that require the applicant to 1) provide and maintain adequate landscape screening and buffers along the south property line to protect adjacent property from excessive exposure to noise, refuse, fumes, glare, lights, debris, transformers, pad -mounted mechanical/electrical equipment or other unsightly developments; and 2) define and limit vehicular/service truck access to the site to avoid creating interference or hazards with traffic on the adjacent street while providing safe, fast and efficient movement of vehicles to off street parking and service areas. 0 0 We request that the conditions of approval be specific by stating that: 1. A minimum 5- to 6 -foot high solid screen be provided along the south property line. This screen may include fencing, walls and/or landscape combinations that will provide a dense site obscuring, sound absorbing buffer. 2. Plantings should be installed with growth characteristics which will provide the required height and site obscuring within a 2 -year period. 3. Landscaped areas should be developed with a natural, random layout of coniferous and deciduous trees. 4. All planters shall not be less than six (6) feet wide to provide adequate growth area for plantings and protection from dehydration. 5. All landscaped areas shall receive full, automatic irrigation systems. 6. Access to Wilson Road shall be limited to three (3) ingress/egress points along the southern property line. Clear vision triangles will be observed in regard to all screens including vegetation, walls, solid fences or other site obstructions exceeding three (3) feet in height. 7. Any lights shall be shielded or arranged to reflect light away from properties to the south. We believe that D & B Supply can be a good neighbor and that the conditions proposed will encourage excellence and creativity in the design of all future developments and promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions. i • NT 0& 0 LW i Q /z/� LL ��1 0 9 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4, Section 5, T. 3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County PACKARD SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Ted Hutchinson, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 1 0 0 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 39.87 acres in size; the property abuts Kearney and Dove Meadows Subdivisions and is south of Carol Subdivision, which is an Ada County Subdivision die, of -svca vi vn- -- 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential development with 136 single lots of which 128 would be developed with single family dwellings and eight lots will be common open space; a subdivision plat was submitted for approval which showed a 4.95 acre private neighborhood park; either in the letter submitted with the annexation, zoning and subdivision applications by Ted Hutchinson or by him at the public hearing it was stated the homeowner's association will maintain the landscaped common areas; fences will be installed along the perimeter, a pressurized irrigation system will be developed; that the minimum lot size would be 8,000 square feet with minimum dwelling size of 1,400; that there are several larger lots adjoining Carol Subdivision #2, which are approximately 13,091 square feet; that the ditches will be tiled; that some of the block lengths and cul- de-sacs are longer than allowed by the ordinance and that Applicant desires that the standards be waived; that a temporary lift station for sewer will be necessary but eventually the land would sewer to the South Slough. Mr Hutchinson later testified that the design of the subdivision was driven by the desire for the park space; that the Stokesbury Lateral would be a buffer even if tiled; that the PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 2 0 0 property on the north owns the right-of-way for the lateral 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially and agriculturally; that the residential property to the south is zoned R-8 as is the residential property to the west; that Carol subdivision is not in the City of Meridian and is an acre or larger lot subdivision. 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 entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture. 10. That comments were made from the people attending for the hearing; the comments were as follows: a. Don Bryan testified that his irrigation lateral runs along the south boundary of this property; that he has worked with the developer of Dove Meadows and the church property that is south of this property and has had problems with the water. He later testified that the of-wiay was his access to his water headgate Y Stokesb�r�y Lafe�a.e. b. Dennis Brockway testified that he was an owner of property in Carol Subdivision; that the proposed buffer lots are not large enough; that he desires a berm with a fence; that a buffer is good compromise. He later testified that he had no problems with reducing the number of lots. PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 3 C. Jon Barnes testified that he had no problem with the density; that there was a problem with the design of the subdivision; that there would be a speed problem along the long street; that there was not enough depth for the larger lots that are proposed to buffer Carol Subdivision; that the buffer lots need to be deepened to act as a buffer. He later testified that the green space could be tied in to make a nice development; that development was not going back to grid system; that he would work with the developer on landscaping the Stokesbury Lateral. d. Douglas Miller testified that there was an invasion of privacy with this development; that he likes the berm idea and want a buffer. e. Dick Packinham testified that there needs to be a 20 foot high berm and fence; that he does not like the project. f. William Ball testified that he wants a 6 foot berm with a fence on top of that. g. Helen Sharp testified that the school district needed help by not developing; that she had a question on the traffic study; that there were problems with water already; that there was a high water table. h. Bert Borup testified that the access was bad; that the time was not right for this subdivision; that he owns property to the north; that this development was premature; that he had problems with using a lift station. He later testified about irrigation and again that the time was not right for this development. i. Vern Alleman testified that he questioned a temporary lift station; he wanted to know what the time limit on a temporary lift station was and he wondered what it did to the trunk line; that he had questions on bonding and whose obligation it was to maintain the lift station; and that bonding should be required. j. Dale Sharp testified that there needs to be a berm and fence that people should be kept out and away from the lateral road. 12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada County /street PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 4 0 0 Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power and U. S. West and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full by this reference. 13. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and his Assistant, Bruce Freckleton commented that the high seasonal ground water needs to be determined; that the ditches need to be tiled; coordinate the placement of fire hydrants with the water department; existing domestic wells and septic systems will have to be removed; that restrictive covenants need to b submitted; and other comments. Additionally the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted comment that a variance was required on the length of the cul-de-sac and for block lengths; that perimeter fencing needed to be installed; and, amongst other comments, stated that the Applicant should receive a Mayoral commendation for offering to provide and develop park space. 14. The Ada County Highway District commented that this project is of sufficient size, and/or is expected to generate traffic impacts such that the District requests deferral of the public hearing until the required traffic study has been approved by the District. 15. The Central District Health Department commented that this an area of high seasonal ground water at about five feet below grade; that they recommend using a storm water management system that will not degrade water quality. 16. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that the Stokesberry Lateral crosses along the north boundary of PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 5 0 0 the project, that the right-of-way is 40 feet, and that it was recommended that irrigation water be made available to the development. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 20. 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: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delienate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in detached houses in that zone; that the Applicant is planning detached single family houses and has stated that the R-4 requirements of 1,400 square foot homes and 8,000 PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 6 0 0 square foot lots would be met. 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with range of affordable housing opportunities." and states under 2.5U as follows: "Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." 22. 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 . 23. 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." 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, 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, town houses 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." PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 7 0 0 25. 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. 26. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 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 PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 8 0 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 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;" PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 9 0 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; 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 10 0 0 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 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 PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 11 0 0 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., B 2, K, L, 11-9-606 B. 14., pressurized irrigation; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de -annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 12 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled, if annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. That the development of R-4 as suggested by the Applicant is not compatible to the homes in Carol Subdivision; that R-4 development would be compatible with the lots and homes in Kearney Subdivision, Dove Meadows, and the other R-8 subdivisions in the area; that some type of transition development between Carol Subdivision and the lots along Wingate Lane, and this property's proposed northern lots, needs to be put forth for the development of the property. 14. That if the Applicant does not request that transition zoning be applied to the land and submit a plat application showing this, it is concluded that the property should not be annexed; that it is of great concern to the Commission that the lots along Carol Subdivision and Wingate Lane are protected; that the matter should PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 13 be tabled until a new subdivision application is submitted; that as a condition of annexation, if ultimately annexed, it is concluded that more distance, berming and/or screening should be placed between the two subdivisions and this proposed subdivision and the lots fronting Wingate Lane which may abut this land. 15. That it is further concluded that the access for Don Bryan, or any other water user, to his headgates or water shall not be impeded. 16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation, when annexed, and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and eventual new plat to meet the transition between acre or more lots and R-4 would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's application for annexation and zoning should be tabled until a new plat is submitted which addresses transition zoning; that any new subdivision plat must be compatible with Carol Subdivision and the lots along Wingate Lane. The zoning should gradually go from the acre lots of Carol Subdivision to the R-4 lots in the southern and western ends of this subdivision; that the conditions would be those stated above if the property is PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 14 0 0 eventually annexed and zoned; that the annexation and development then would be more of an orderly and reasonable development; that the property shall be subject to de -annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 19. That proper and adequate access to the property is of concern to the Commission and should be addressed in the new plat. 20. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and eventual new plat to meet the transition between acre or more lots and the R-4 lots, would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian, but it should be tabled to allow the Applicant time to submit another plat. 21. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property should not annexed. 22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL HEPPER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) I' w �\ • i ON VOTED VOTED PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 15 0 RECOMMENDATION C_1 The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the Application for annexation and zoning be tabled; if the Applicant shall not meet these conditions, the Application shall be denied. MOTION: APPROVED:/ DISAPPROVED: PACKARD ANNEXATION AND ZONING FF & CL Page - 16 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HOMAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP GREENHAVEN ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING PORTION OF THE N 1/2 NE 1/4 SE SECTION 1, T.3N., R.1E MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant not appearing but through Gary Lee, Professional Engineer, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 1 0 0 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 14.88 acres in size; it is on the west side of Meridian Road between Cherry Lane Road and Ustick Road; that it is adjacent to Lansbury Subdivision; Strasser Farm Subdivision lies to the north. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but he has submitted the consent of the titled owners, John W. and Candy J. Homan and Donald F. and Rae Jean Homan. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for two residences and for limited agriculture; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for R-4 Residential development with houses containing a minimum of 1,400 square feet; that the Applicant has submitted a preliminary plat. ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 2 9 0 10. That Gary Lee stated at the hearing that the density would be 2.7 dwellings units per acre, that there would be a 20 foot landscaped buffer along Meridian Road, that the lots would be approximately 13,000 square feet, that the R-4 requirements would be met, the streets would meet ACHD requirements, that they would request a variance on the cul-de-sac length, that the Onweiler ditch would be used for pressurized irrigation, that the road medium would be landscaped, that the homes would be from 1,400 to 1,800 square feet, and that the City Engineer's comments would be met. 11. It is also stated in the Application that Onweiler canal and other irrigation ditches would be tiled to continue delivery of irrigation water and that other smaller irrigation and drainage ditches that deliver water to this property only would be abandoned; that pressurized irrigation would be constructed to each lot and a pumping station tentatively planned to be located at the northeast corner of the development, which irrigation system would be operated by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; that access to the sewer line for purposes of maintenance, is still being worked out with the owner of the property, Mr. Bob Flaten and the developer of Lansbury Lane Subdivision, Mr. Cris Williams. 12. There were property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the annexation and zoning of the parcel: a. Rich and Gloria Fern testified that their concerns have to do with the traffic constantly being in front of their property once the development is finished with the flow coming in and out of the complex; that the Ada County Highway District and Shari Stiles have commented there GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 3 are an estimated 400 vehicle trips per day that will take place; that vehicle lights will be hitting directly onto their duplex and as the vehicles turn the lights will be crossing their entire residence; that street lighting won't be offensive if proposed; that a concern over their tenants backing out of their residences onto Greenhaven Estates Street; that adequate dumpsters be made available at the construction site to care for blowing debris and that the developer put sound walls and landscape barriers to curtail some of the noise and lessen the visual impact of headlights to preserve privacy. b. Dan Sweet testified regarding the size of the house the developer plans for this development; that the property north of this proposed development has houses in the 2600 square foot range; that when the zoning starts to go down to R-4 the size and price of the homes in the area diminish; that the Commission stick with not real expensive developments and little so so developments; that he too, is concerned about the increase of traffic. C. That John Sanford testified that his 7 1/2 acres east of Vendable Lane, which is a private, deeded lane, is landlocked; that he needs access; that he was told Vendable Lane would be made a through street when the Waterbury Park No. 5 was being developed; that the engineers for Waterbury Park No. 5 development, Brian Smith, Hubble Engineering, told him they were going to make a stipulation to cross the slough onto Mr. Sanford's property so he would have access into Waterbury No. 5; that now Mr. Smith says this is not true, that they did away with that; that kids are already coming from Lansbury Subdivision chasing his horses which are across the ditch; that Vendable Lane needs to be a public street; that the Ada County Highway District said they figured he would never want access for reasons of development because of the large arena he has for cutting horses; that Mr. Sanford never received notice of Waterbury 5 Subdivision being finally approved and that they are not going to go across the canal like Mr. Sanford was earlier told. d. That Joe Simunich testified as to the irrigation and the Onweiler Lateral; that on the plat for Lansbury Subdivision the covenants say no irrigation water will be provided to the lots; that now this developer is scheduling pressurized irrigation; that those established in the area are not likely to give up their water rights; that for years there has been a rotation on that lateral; that the question arises as to how the developer plans to water all these proposed lots on a 12 hour rotation when GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 4 11 water only comes 12 hours out of every 8 days; that when these subdivisions come up, we in the area get a product or ditch or something that is unsatisfactory like fences built right on top of the irrigation line causing people not to have access to their head gates. e. Chris Williams testified that he liked the density; that he desire restriction of an entrance which included a brick wall, islands in the roadway, that the frontage setbacks be alternated, that the homes should be a minimum of 1,600 square feet. 13. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 14. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 15. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines. 17. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, the Central District Health Department, Ada County Highway District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Idaho Power, U. S. West and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did submit comments and such are incorporated GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 5 9 herein as if set forth in full. 0 That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments among which were that a 20 foot minimum landscape strip is required along Meridian Road outside of the proposed right-of-way, all ditches are to be tiled and approval obtained of Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District obtained prior to applying for building permits, that landscaped islands should be placed on the roadway centerline, that a variance was needed for the length of the cul-de-sac, that the property to the south has a minimum house size of 1,700 square feet, that perimeter fencing is to be installed, and a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation; that the City Engineer commented that the legal description needs to be resubmitted pursuant to Resolution 158, that the seasonal high ground water elevation needs to be determined and a profile of the sub -surface soil conditions was needed, that the irrigation ditches crossing the parcel need to be tiled, that a master street drainage plan needed to be submitted, and that the fire hydrant placement needed to be coordinated with the Water Works Department. 18. It is particularly noted that the Ada County Highway District , in its site specific requirements, stated that the stub street shown running to the north should run to the west. 19. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: 1R-41 Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 6 0 0 dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision applied for would comply with the R-4 requirements. 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided11 . 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 7 111.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, town houses 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." 24. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 8 0 0 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 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, ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 9 to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 10 9 0 within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the CITY COUNCIL has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, The Development Group, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but is at the request of the Applicant. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 11 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, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set -asides for future public service use; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de - annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. GREENRAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 12 9 0 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that it is concluded that as a condition of annexation, access to the property now owned by John Sanford shall be provided; that the access shall be sufficient to meet Ada County Highway District street requirements. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies; but the land does border rural farms or ranches and those farms and ranches shall be buffered and the subdivision covenants shall let the home owners in the proposed subdivision know that the farms and ranches are there and that agricultural uses will, or may, be continued; that this matter shall be addressed in the development agreement. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-4; that the conditions should be those stated above; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de -annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 13 0 0 annexation and zoning of R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. Since the property to the north and to the south, as shown from the testimony of Dan Swwet and Chris Williams, have homes of at least 1,600 square feet, it is concluded that the minimum size house that could be built in this subdivision should be 1,600 square feet. (Added to Conclusions pursuant to motion made and passed by the Commission on November 9, 1994.) 16. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de -annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL HEPPER I:TiUI 9WNJ� COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) ION VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the property be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the minimum size houses that could be built in this subdivision should be 1,600 square feet, and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 14 0 �J tile all ditches, canals and waterways, and install a pressurized irrigation system, as conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: GREENHAVEN ESTATES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 15 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DIANE AND ROBERT LANG REZONE APPLICATION ANTIQUE STORE 1115 E. 1ST STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Commissioner Johnson stepped down due to potential conflict of interest, the Petitioner appearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the titled owners are Rod R. and LaVerne W. Schoen who have consented to the rezone of the property; the property is described FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 1 0 0 in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-15 Residential; the area in which Applicant's property is located is developed as a residential area but several of the properties have been rezoned to commercial. 3. That the Applicants propose to have the property zoned (C -C) Community Commercial or (C -G) General Retail and Service Commercial. 4. That the C -C District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows: (C -C) Community Business District: The purpose of the (C -C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off- street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the C -G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows: (C -G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose of the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 2 0 constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 6. That the uses of the properties surrounding the subject property are operating businesses; two doors to the south of the subject property is Cottage Expressions, Karate training is three doors north and the U. S. Post office is across the street. 7. That there was no testimony at the hearing objecting to the Application; that the Applicant's representative, Roen Wilson, testified that the Lang's desire to use the property for an antique and collectibles shop. 8. That sewer and water is available and are connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees. 9. That Planning & Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that this rezone complies with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the Applicant needs to submit site plan showing landscaping, parking drainage calculations, etc., in accordance with City ordinances and standards prior to opening; that the parking area cannot be closer than four (4) feet to the adjacent alley or street right-of-way; that the Ada County Highway District commented and are incorporated herein; that comments may be submitted by the City Engineer, Meridian Sewer Department and other agencies and those comments will be incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 10. That the property fronts on East First Street which is a minor arterial. 11. That proper notice has been given as required by law and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 3 0 0 all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants, property. 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 (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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWMANG Page 4 • specifically concludes as follows: (a) The property is in an area where commercial and office uses are likely to desire to locate and many of the properties in the area have been rezoned to commercial. The new zoning should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The area is on the main street of Meridian where substantial commercial property is located. A rezone of the subject property is in line with that use. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is developed in a residential fashion but has had several properties rezoned. The new zoning of C -C Commercial should not be contrary to the other uses in the area. (d) There has been a change in the area which dictates that the property should be rezoned and the area is very likely to be developed in an office or commercial fashion. (e) That the property is designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) Commercial uses should not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property will be able to be adequately served with public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water is required. (h) Commercial uses should not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. (j) Development should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns in that the property has good street frontage. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWMANG Page 5 9 0 (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 6. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendations and requirements of City of Meridian Departments and other governmental agencies will have to be met and complied with. 7. That any signs placed on the property shall meet the Meridian Sign Ordinance and shall not be lighted so as to shine in the eyes of vehieJee traveling on East First Street. Gari ve rs 8. That the Applicant and all users of the property shall comply with all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety codes, and the Uniform Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTIEDI&---- VOTED3�e�: W"�( VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWMANG Page 6 9 0 DECISION AND 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 the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the comments of the Meridian Departments and the other governmental agencies. MOTION: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/LANG Page 7 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TACO BELL RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INTERSECTION OF MERIDIAN ROAD & EAST 1ST STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through the project's representative, Ron Thurber, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 1 • 3. That the property is zoned C -G, General Service and Retail Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for a drive through window facility which the application requests, using loudspeakers. 4. That the C -G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows: (C -G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose of the (C -G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel -related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409 B. 6. That the property is vacant and has no present use; that the property to the southeast is the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant; that the property to the north is a vacant building that has been used for truck sales and repair. 7. That the abutting properties are used for commercial purposes. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBS Page 2 8. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 9. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. 10. That the City Planning Director commented as to the City Ordinance requiring 19' parking spaces including three handicapped spaces visibly marked with an eight -foot access aisle; a 25' driveway aisle, as well as ACHD right-of-way and entrance corridors; five-foot (51) sidewalks are required; and communications system volume must not impact adjoining properties and encourages telephones rather than loudspeakers. 11. That the City Engineer did not file comments on the Conditional Use Application, but if he does prior to the City Council hearing they will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian Fire Department commented that all codes, water and hydrant requirements will have to be met; the Ada County Highway District submitted comments and are incorporated herein; the Central District Health Department's comments refer to stormwater management; that the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments referring to surface drainage being retained on site and recommending irrigation water be made available to all developments within the District and the District requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBS Page 3 12. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property; 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBB Page 4 0 0 a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, all parking and landscaping requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBS Page 5 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 VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTE CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/GIBS Page 6 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION D & B SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NEB -i COMPANY 1885 EAST FAIRVIEW AVENUE MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a representative, Dick Schrandt, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; that the property is in the Locust Grove District as shown on page seven of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map; it is located on Fairview Avenue, a principal arterial entrance to the City, and is described in the application which description and is incorporated herein. 3. That the property was proposed in Applicant's annexation and zoning application to be zoned C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial, which does not require a conditional use permit to develop a general merchandise retail store and parking lot, but the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the annexation of the property state in Conclusion N. 13, as a condition of annexation, " . . that any use or development of the property shall only be allowed as a conditional use with design review"; it is likely that the property will be zoned C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial. 4. That the 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 encourage clustering of commercial development. 5. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the property; that the owner of record is Roger C. Crandlemire and he has authorized the conditional use application. 6. That the present use of the land is for pasture and farmland. 7. That the proposed use by the Applicant is for a single general merchandise retail store of approximately 50,000 square feet which would provide merchandise in the following areas: Lawn and Garden, Hardware and tools, Plumbing and Electrical, Work and Casual Clothing, Toys,, Tack and Animal Health, and Agricultural Supplies; and an associated parking lot; that the Applicant submitted drawings of the proposed layout of the building that is proposed to be constructed but they were not construction drawings; they did not show the 35 foot landscaping which was required under the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the City Council on the annexation and zoning; that the Applicant's representative had stated at the Planning and Zoning hearing on the annexation and zoning that he had a problem with the comment that a 35 foot landscape setback was required; that at the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated that Applicant was now proposing a 25 foot setback. 8. That at the public hearing Dick Schrandt, of D & B Supply, the proposed user of the property, stated that there would be more trees than shown on the submitted drawings, that there FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. would be screening to Wilson Lane, that a development agreement had been submitted, that they had no problem with complying with the Meridian staff comments, that the store would be attractive, and that he had no knowledge of what was going to be built on the four lots to the west of the D & B Supply store. In response to a question from Commissioner Tim Hepper he stated that the 35 foot landscape set back was too much land but that they would provide 25 feet. He further stated that there would be 68 3 -inch caliper trees, decorative shrubbery, landscaping across the back of the store, and that they would improve Wilson Lane. In response to the testimony of Tom Zabala, discussed below, Mr. Schrandt stated that they would add to the landscape on the south, that there would not be unlimited access to the south, that there would be two 40 foot accesses from Wilson Lane, that deliveries would be made during normal business hours, that it �o qnR would be a clean retail store, that they would use ropose forklifts, that water runoff would be maintained on-site, that there would be fencing and landscaping around the building, and that they would do the screening necessary. 9. Tom Zabala testified, and submitted a written copy of his testimony, that he was testifying on behalf of Tom and Barbara Myall; that he had reviewed the site development plan; that conditions should be required so that development would be done in accordance with the Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; that the landscaping on the south shown on the plans was inadequate; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 the lighting was bad; that trucks and vehicles would be a problem; that he had developed a site plan and he submitted that into evidence; that the Myall's property would probably be developed into office or high density residential; that there should be a condition that the south should be landscaped and there should be protection of the property to the south that relate to noise, refuse, lighting and debris; that there should be right-of-way improvements that limits access to property on Wilson Street; that there should be a five to six foot solid screen of the property to the south; that there should be five to six foot planters for conifer and deciduous trees; that there should be sprinklers for the landscaping; that access to Wilson street should be limited to two accesses; that the lights should be shielded so they do not shine to the south; and there should be curb, gutter and sidewalk on Wilson Street. 10. Tom Myall testified that he and his wife were the owners of 1470 N. Locust Grove Lane, Meridian, Idaho, (which is the property to the south of the subject property); that as commercial development encroaches in an historically rural residential; that the land is in a mixed-use area; that there are policies applicable to development, specifically 5.18U, page 28, (of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan) which states: "Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land -use development in those areas. Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all developments requests in this area."; that the screening was addressed in the Findings of Fact and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 Conclusions of Law adopted on the annexation under 11-9-605 G 1. and that requires a 20 foot planting strip next to commercial or industrial uses to screen residential properties; that he mentioned the following items that he stated were applicable to this development: 11-2-413 B 1. c.,d.,f., and h. 11-2-413 C 12. a. 11-2-414 D 2. a., b., c. and d., and 3; he stated that he had the following concern: "That there was potential glare from the parking area lights and the rear store security lights and potential for contaminated water run-off from the parking area and building."; and stated that he had the following suggestions: 1. Landscaping, berming and fencing be increased from what is shown on the site plan to extend the length of the property. 2. Limit the ingress/egress points on Wilson Street to two or three access points, one or two curb cuts at the west end and one curb cut at the east end. 3. That drainage enter a sewer system. 4. That during construction ingress and egress to their residence not be blocked at any time. 11. That one of the conclusions made for the annexation and zoning was that prior to annexation and zoning of C -G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11- D; the annexation and zoning conclusions stated some of the matters that needed to be included in the development agreement; the development agreement has not been entered into as of the date of the conditional use hearing and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. no annexation ordinance has been adopted since the development agreement was a condition to passage of an annexation ordinance. 12. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. 13. That the Ada County Highway District commented that a 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalk was required along Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel; that a minimum separation of 460 feet from the near edge of Locust Grove Road to the westerly access point driveway on Fairview and that driveways on Fairview Avenue must be constructed as curb return type approaches with a minimum throat of 30 -feet and a 5 -foot radii; that construction of Wilson Lane must be one-half of a 41 -foot back-to-back street section with vertical curb, plus 12 -feet of paving and 5 -foot concrete sidewalks along the subject parcel, that access points on Wilson Lane shall be clearly delineated, and Wilson Lane must be constructed from the west end of this parcel to Locust Grove Road with 24 -feet of paving; and that an easement and public turnaround must be constructed and provided at the east end of Wilson Lane and that there must be coordination of the design and location with ACHD development staff. 14. That the City Planning Director commented that 68 3 -inch caliper trees are required for the plan shown; that Applicant is to submit fully detailed landscape plan as part of the application for building permit; that the parking area needs to be broken up with FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 landscaping, preferably every 100 to 150 feet; that Applicant should provide a screening landscape strip along the southern border except where designated accesses are planned and except where necessary to provide clear vision triangle; that 5 -foot sidewalks are to be constructed along Fairview Avenue and Wilson Lane; that storage of equipment and materials is to be adequately screened from view on all sides; and a total of 11 handicapped parking spaces is required, that two of these require an 8 -foot access aisle, and the spaces must be designated with appropriate striping and signage. 15. That the City Engineer did not file comments on the Conditional use Application, but if he does prior to the City Council hearing they will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian Fire Chief commented that all codes, water and hydran equirements ill need to be met; that the Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian and Settlers Irrigation Districts, and Idaho Power Company submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That Fred Mack, attorney at law, representing Barbara Myall who owns 16 acres directly south of the subject property submitted a letter in which he stated that he had reviewed the Application and site plans; that since the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the annexation required disclosure of the proposed uses, but that nothing had been disclosed about lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 and such disclosure should be required for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. development of the entire parcel and the Applicant should not be allowed to exclude any portion thereof; that the plans showed a storage yard which could be used to store unsightly materials and that there was potential for noise from service trucks entering and departing from the rear of the store, he suggested that the landscaping be increased to extend the full length of the rear of the store and that landscaping be incorporated in order to shield the Myall property from view and noise; that the site should be limited to two ingress/egress points on of which should be a curb cut at the west end and one at the north end near the entry gate and that such would allow for a maximum area to be required to be fenced, bermed and landscaped to minimize the truck noise and unsightly appearance problems; he also suggested, to benefit the City and the Myalls, that the Wilson Lane be extended to the end of the dedicated roadway and not be limited to where the D & B Store ends and that water and sewer lines should be required to be constructed such that they would be able to serve D & B and any future development. 17. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property; 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That the Conclusions on the annexation and zoning of the property state that the property would only be capable of being developed as a planned commercial development, under the conditional use permit process, with design review; therefore a conditional use is required for development of the property, which is what the Applicant has applied for in conformance with the annexation conclusions. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 5. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. 0 0 annexation conclusions of law, and the Comprehensive Plan. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Annexation require a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 7. All requirements of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted for the annexation and zoning of the property and of the annexation and zoning ordinance that will be adopted must be met, including entering into a development agreement; that the development agreement must meet the requirements outlined in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted on the annexation of the property, specifically including 25 foot landscape requirement along Fairview Avenue, and entryway corridor to the City of Meridian. 8. Comment was made in the letter from Mr. Mack that the Applicant should be required to disclose the proposed uses and intention for development for the entire parcel of property and not be allowed to exclude any portion thereof because it was a requirement of the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the annexation and zoning be conditioned on the City determining what the proposed uses are and whether the proposed uses are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law also state, ". . . the property should be subject to de -annexation if the uses and lay -out of uses are not in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan." and ". . . even if some uses are revealed and those uses are determined to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, any use or development of the property shall only be allowed as a conditional use with design review"; it is therefore concluded that since the City Council also concluded that the property should be subject to de -annexation if the uses and lay -out of uses are not in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, it did not intend to require total disclosure of all development and uses before a single use was allowed under the conditional use process; this is so concluded because the Council stated that the land could be de - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 NEB -i - D S B SUPPLY CO. 11 r annexed if the use did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. It is further concluded that the Applicant shall meet all of its representations made at the public hearing, shall meet the requirements and comments of the City staff, particularly those of Shari Stiles, and of the Nampa & Meridian and Settlers Irrigation Districts. 10. That since the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law required a development agreement to be entered into prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being adopted, since such development agreement has not been entered into as of this date, and since a conditional use permit cannot be granted until the property is annexed, the development agreement is concluded to be a condition of a conditional use permit; the development must also meet any requirements of a planned commercial development. 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) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. VOTED VOTED VOTEDi� / `^ VOTED VOTED Page 13 DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that no conditional use permit should be granted until the property is annexed and zoned, a development agreement is entered into, and all the City's requirements have been met. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 NEB -i - D & B SUPPLY CO. welved, Testimony Public Hearing Meridian P&Z October 11, 1994 ,ZA/Aell My name is Thom Myall. I am representing my wife, Barbara Myall, and myself. We are property owners at 1470 N. Locust Grove Road, Meridian , Idaho, which is immediately south of the NEB -i proposal. This property was the home of my wife's late parents for thirty years and is presently rural residential, in Ada County, and zoned Rural Transitional (RT). We have maintained a gravel road down Wilson Lane to our residence during this time. The property consists of a residence and approximately 16 acres, lots 18, 19, and 20 of Pleasant Valley Subdivision. The home is viable residence which is currently leased. At this time we do not know how our land will be developed. We realize Meridian is experiencing growth and desires commercial development to increase its tax base, provide jobs, and offer local shopping , a goal stated in the Meridan Comprehensive Plan. As commercial development encroaches in an historically rural residential subdivision, often incompatible land uses result. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan addresses this issue relative to the Pleasant Valley Subdivision , which is designated as a Mixed -Use Area. Policies applicable to development are stated, specifically, Paragraph 5.18U, Page 28 -- NEBiPZO94 Page 1 ".Existing residential prop erites will be protected form intompatible land -use development in this area. Screening and buffers will be incorporated. into all development requests in this area." Also, the issue of screening and buffering is addressed in the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, August 16, 1994. [Paragraph 29, Page 12 states and I quote: "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."] In addition, the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance 1993 contains ordinances that disffuse the adverse impact of commerical uses on residental property. The following items are applicable to this development and of interst to us. 1. Provisions for Commercial and Industrial Uses - Section 2-413, B 1. c. d. f. h. - Page 54 and 55. ( c -noise, f -glare, h -water pollution ) 2. Outdoor Storage of Commercial and Industrial Materials - Section 2-413, C 12. a. - Page 58. ( a -screening from residence ) 3. Design Standards for Off -Street Parking - Section 2-414, D 2 a., b., c. and d. and 3 - Page 63. ( a -Landscaping, b -underground sprinkling, c -screening, d - drainage, 3 -lighting = direct rays or spill over to residential ) In addition to the written testimonty of 10/5/94, submitted to Meridian NEBiPZO94 Page 2 Plahning and Zoning b obur attorney, Fred Mack, I halo the following concerns relative to the impact the NEB -i proposal will have on our property:,.:. 1. The present application and site plan show a D & B retail store, with parking lot and storage yard. There is the potential for glare from the parking area lights and rear store security lights and the potential for contaminated water run- off from the parking area and building. In reference to the aforementioned policies and ordinances, and in order to minimize the adverse affects created by this development on the continued enjoyment of our residence and any future development of our property, we suggest the following be required: 1. Appropiate landscaping , berming and fencing be increased from what is shown on the site plan to extend the entire length of the storage yard, building and parking lot as they abut Wilson Lane. 2. The rear of the site be limited to two (2)(3) ingress/egress points on Wilson Lane, (one) (two) curb cut located at the west end and one curb cut at the east end. These two items would reduce the adverse impact of glare, noise and unsightly view from our residence. 3. We request that all drainage from the site enter a sewer system. 4. We request that during construction ingress and eggress to our residence not be blocked at any time. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. NEBiPZ094 Page 3 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION B. W. INC. DANBURY FAIR 5, 6 AND 7 ANNEXATION AND ZONING SECTION 7, T.U., R.1E., BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Dan Torfin, representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is approximately 32.01 acres; that the property is located within the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the Application DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 requests three (3) parcels and to be annexed and they are adjacent to the existing developed and developing Danbury Fair Subdivision which is designated as R-8 zoning. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially and is predominantly zoned R-8. 5. That either at the hearing, in the Application, or in the letter sent with the Application, it was stated as follows: a. That Phase 5 contains 33 lots on 10.4 acres; that single family homes are proposed which is compatible with the surrounding area; that a proposed pocket park with playground equipment will be developed on this parcel as well as that the 15 to 18 feet of existing road along the Five Mile Creek could be developed as a green belt or a multi -use pathway, probably gravel, for bicyclist's, possibly equestrians and walkers; that if this pathway is developed, it is proposed that the City of Meridian take over ownership and maintenance of that pathway; that it could be incorporated into a master pathway system as things develop along the creek. b. That access will be through the existing Danbury Fair Subdivision through a street that is currently scheduled to be constructed sometime in November; that no development would occur in that area until that street was extended; that sewer and water will be extended to serve this project. C. That Phase 6 fronts on Locust Grove Road and contains 73 lots on 18.93 acres; that upon ACHD requirements, stub streets will be provided, one to the northeast corner of Phase 6 and also a stub street from #6 to a park that is proposed in Phase 3, to be developed in the spring of 1995. d. That because the City of Meridian has a requirement that blocks lengths not to exceed 1,000 feet, this application will likely seek a variance on the stub street to be developed in the northeast corner of Phase 6 because the DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 0 0 block length from the stub street to the northwest corner is over 1,000 feet. e. That Phase 7 contains 12 lots on 3.07 acres and is located in the northerly portion within the original preliminary plat of Danbury Fair; that a portion just north of this parcel will be a veterinary clinic that includes some R-8 property which has been through a rezone and approved by the City Council. f. That all homes will have some brick; that the homes built will not be less than 1100 square feet and that the developer will maintain control on fences and color of exterior. 6. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the City does have an Ordinance, 11-2-411 B.2., that allows certain percentages of the DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 3 0 0 homes to be 1,001 to 1,100, 1,101 to 1,200, and 1,201 to 1,300; that the Applicant has stated in the Application that 1,100 square foot would be the minimum size home. 10. That in prior annexation requests the Planning Director has commented that a perimeter fence should be required; that comment is equally applicable to this annexation application. 11. At the hearing Bernadine Morgan testified that her property, containing nearly five (5) acres, is near Parcel 7; that it looks on 14 back yards and she questions whether or not that side could be fenced; that she has horses and young people from the Danbury Fair Subdivision cut across her place and she is concerned for their safety. 12. That Melinda Harper gave testimony regarding that construction workers should clean up after themselves better as they leave lunch trash behind; that adequate dumpsters and portable facilities should be made available on the job site; that safety for the children should be considered as construction workers leave lots of nails and things laying around; that street lighting should be available, and not offensive; that the speed for the traffic be reduced to 25 miles per hour because of the children living in the area; that Ms. Harper was agreeable to the graveled pathway and hoped there is a restriction on motorized vehicles. 13. That the developer of Danbury Fair, Dennis Baker testified regarding the environmental issues and the proposed pathway; that he wants the same density they asked for. 14. That written testimony was received by Douglas DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 4 0 9 Noltemeier, a professional geographer, along with signatures of nineteen homeowners and residents living in the vicinity of Five Mile Creek who are opposed to the annexation of land adjacent to Five Mile Creek; Mr. Noltemeier and the signers are concerned over the loss of vital riparian habitat to a variety of birds; they proposes the creation of a minimum 50 -foot wide greenbelt with a bike and walking path along Five Mile Creek; Mr. Noltemeier proposed planting trees, wild flowers, vegetation, additional habitat and shade which would create a more aesthetically pleasing area. 15. That comments were received from the Assistant City Engineer, City Planning Director, City Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Health, Nampa Meridian Irrigation, Idaho Power and US West; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, commented that some block lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that stub streets to the north and south need to be provided and if a variance application is granted, ten -foot -wide pedestrian walkways with five-foot paved walkways will be required; that sidewalks need to be constructed in accordance with City Ordinance, including along Locust Grove Road and Pine Avenue; that the name, address and telephone number or the owner or the subdivider needs to be added to the plats as well as easements for Five Mile Creek; that non- combustible fencing will be required outside of Settlers Irrigation DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 5 0 0 District, Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, and/or Bureau of Reclamation easement areas, along with respective agency approvals, prior to obtaining building permits; that since Five Mile Creek is designated as a pathway in the Comprehensive Plan, Applicant must submit a plan in accordance with Ada County Pathway Plan; that all pedestrian walkways need proper lighting; that ditches will need to be tiled unless a variance is applied for and granted by the City Council; that the minimum house size needs to be included on the plat; that the proposed street names be shown on plat and that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 17. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer Gary Smith, submitted comments among which were that the legal descriptions submitted with this application don't follow the boundaries of the preliminary plat map; that the discrepancies need to be cleared up and new legal descriptions per Resolution 158 (Aug.16, 1994) need to be resubmitted; that the seasonal high ground water elevation and profile of the sub -surface soil conditions need to be determined; that any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property to be included in this platting, shall be tiled per City Ordinance and the plan will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation district; that the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions shall be submitted for review; that a 250 Watt High Pressure Sodium Street Light will be required at the subdivision's entrance off N. Locust Grove Rd.; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this subdivision will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 6 but wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that the Applicant needs to submit information detailing the traffic impact on existing or adjacent roadways and intersections; that identification and labeling of the existing easements of record for Five Mile Creek as they pertain to this proposed development needs to be added; that the Preliminary Plat map needs to be stamped, signed, and dated by the Land Surveyor who prepared the map and indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries or any plans to reduce said boundaries; that each parcel will carry the phase number and label of the existing platted subdivisions and that water service to this development is contingent on positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. 18. That the Meridian School District commented on October 10, 1994, regarding this application, that its comment made in its letter of October 3, 1994, that the District was in need of land to be dedicated or made available to the district for a school site, was in error. 19. That the Applicant did submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed; that after a review of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Fair, which was titled Benham Park Subdivision, it appears that portions of the land now requested to be annexed, which abut Locust Grove Road and Pine Street, were not portions of the original plat of Benham Park Subdivision. 20. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 7 Plan as being in an Existing Urban Area. 21. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 22. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 23. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 25. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 26. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 27. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 8 0 0 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 28. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 29. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 28. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 29. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 0 9 approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 30. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 31. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 10 0 0 in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 32. 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 application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 11 0 0 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, 11-9-606 b. 14 and plans for Five Mile Creek in accordance with the Ada County Pathway Plan; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 12 0 0 development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de - annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as being in an Existing Urban Area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Settlers Irrigation District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled, if annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 14. That since only a portion of the property proposed to be annexed now was a portion of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Subdivision, which was known as Benham Park Subdivision, that as a condition of annexation, only that portion of this DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 n U �J Application which was a part of the original preliminary plat of Danbury Subdivision should be allowed to have houses which are less than 1,300 square feet; that that portion which is requested to be annexed and zoned which abuts Locust Grove Road and Pine Street and was not part of the original Danbury Subdivision, should meet the 1,300 square foot minimum house size in the R-8 Residential District. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER ROUNTREE SHEARER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED I' VOTED VOTEDVOTED 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 with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the conditions are not met that the property should not be annexed, or if the land has already been annexed, that it be de -annexed. MOTION: DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 14 APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: DANBURY FAIR 5, 6, & 7 ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 OCT 10 '94 16:21 TO 2083*58 FROM MERIDIAN DISTwu T-499 P.02 INTENDENT � EXCF�Dan Mabe. F ance & Administration ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT n Christine Donnell, Personnel & Instruction inDIRECTORS Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Jim Carberry, Secondary \ Doug Rutan, Special Services JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911MERIDIANSTREET • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 • PHONE (208)888,6701 October 10, 1994 Shari Stiles City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Ms. Stiles: Our letter responding to the application for Danbury Fair Subdivision, dated October 3, 1994, had an error in paragraph three. we do not need land set aside for a school site in this subdivision. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, Lc)&,- ge a -,-- Dan Mabe, Deputy Superintendent DM: gr cc: Dennis Baker 9 ` :l�� `�•!|! 4a ! .y \�9mS � \ / \t. �! � a 4a ! y. 4A kr: 64 �' ; "` � � � ,J �,w r �v ':.��: • /'ee ei l -e d /a - //-- 9¢ ADZ ..BUILDERS 111IMASONRY PRODUCTS M A N U F A C T U R E R S & D I S T R I B U T O R S October 11, 1994 Position on rezoning Builders Masonry Products is always enthusiastic to see development and new growth in the economy. However, we feet there are some very real problems with rezoning a industrial property to a residential development. It will not only be hazardous for us, but for the city and the potential residents. As we have seen documented nationally, when residential developments are constructed in an area originally zoned for industrial use, there begins to be restrictions on the business. The noise levels of the plant could be a problem for residents, putting our manufacturing plant at a disadvantage due to time restrictions on production. With new neighborhoods, the number of children in the area will increase. This poses two potential problems. One is for the safety of the children who may wander onto our property. The second is the potential problem of more property damage and vandalism to our facility. For the reasons described above, Builders Masonry Products position is to oppose the rezoning of this property for residential purposes and to maintain this area as it was originally zoned. 1300E. FRANKLIN ROAD • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 • (208)888-4050 IVNIOM BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION AND ZONING GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 11, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for October 11, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 11, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 0 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is five acres in size; the property abuts and is west of Locust Grove Road, and it is north of Doris Subdivision, a subdivision of lots of one acre or more. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8 Residential development with 36 single level town house duplexes in 18 town house buildings; that an Applicant's representative stated there would be a six foot privacy fence going around the entire exterior. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially; that the residential property to the south is in Ada County and not the City of Meridian and it is developed with 1/2 acre or larger lots; that the property to the north is zoned R-8 as is the property to the west; the property to the east is in agricultural use but has recently been rezoned to C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, and the record owners are Grant B. Richards and Carrol D. Richards, the Applicant has an agreement to purchase the property; that the owners of record must consent to this annexation prior to final action being taken by the City. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is not for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for 36 town houses in 18 buildings. 10. That the Applicant did submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed; that a representative stated Applicant was going to build town houses and that the development would be similar to one that he had done in Boise, at 1515 Silverton Lane. 11. That comments were made from the people attending for the hearing; the comments were as follows: a. Don Bryan testified that he would like to see some fencing and water monitoring; that the fencing should be put up before construction to keep the trash enclosed; that he wanted to know what was going to happen to the ditches; that he was apposed to the project. b. Eric Anderson testified that he was concerned about the density and that there was a privacy issue; that he was concerned over water pressure; that there was going to be a lot more traffic on Locust Grove Road; that this would cause a loss in property values. C. Kathleen Coulter testified that the proposed street was not as big as other streets; that she was concerned about the property values, the setbacks and the water pressure. d. David Baley, the Applicant's engineer, testified that there were 36 lots with two non -buildable landscape lots; that it was an infill project; that there is existing sewer but there is still a question about the water; the street width was 46 feet of right-of-way, 36 feet of roadway and five feet of sidewalk on each side of the street; that the units would have two car garages and are JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF 6 CL Page - 3 0 0 single story units; that the minimum square footage was 1,228 square feet; that they would be build as town houses and each unit would have separate power and water meters; that the lot size is 4,250 square foot. e. Steve Jensen, a realtor for the Applicant, testified that they would be single level units targeted for a senior citizen market; that there would be restrictions as far as the use of the dwellings; that there would b a 6 foot privacy fencing around the entire exterior and that everybody's backyard would be privacy fenced as well; that they were meeting all of the setback requirements; that the smallest unit would be 1,228 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms; that the three bedroom unit would be 1,406 square feet; that both would have 22 foot wide garages; that the covenants would restrict parking on the streets; that rentals of the units would not be restricted. f. Scott Stewart testified that there was a market demand for the proposed units; that seniors generally do not have two vehicles. g. Jay Jones testified that he lived on lot 9 of Doris Subdivision; that he would not like to see the application approved; that he was apposed to it on the basis of density as well as the difference in property values; that the project doe not suit the particular needs of the area; that if it was approved it should be a senior center and meet the requirements of a senior center; that he had a real concern with the setback in that the proposed town houses would be close to his back yard. h. Lane Mortsen testified as to opposition to the project. i. Pat Sanford testified to being concerned about the property values and that she was apposed to the project. j. Kim Daniel testified about opposing the project on the basis of the water issue. k. Scott Dixon testified that he was concern about the property value and the water issue. 12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, and JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 4 0 0 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full by this reference. 13. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that of particular note in his comments is that the legal description needs to be prepared by a certified registered land surveyor pursuant to Resolution 158; that the high seasonal ground water needs to be determined; that a conceptual engineering plan needs to be submitted; that the ditches need to be tiled; coordinate the placement of fire hydrants with the water department; and he had comments on the street width. Additionally the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted comment that a variance was required on the length of the cul-de-sac, that perimeter fencing needed to be installed prior to apply for building permits, that the plat needed some additions, that there needs to be additional buffering (landscaping) as well as fencing to help protect adjacent properties developed as lower densities, and that a development agreement was required as a condition of annexation. 14. That the Police Chief commented that high density population areas need more police services and that the long one way in and out is not the best. 15. The Fire Chief commented that the wider street will help a lot; that there was no place for second access; and that a pedestrian pathway might work. 16. That Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Ada County street JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 5 0 n Name Committee, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power and U. S. West submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 17. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. That in the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, 5. MIXED -PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Mixed -Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue plus areas North of Fairview Avenue, it is stated: These areas are within Ada County, but nearly surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is characterized by large lots, and a sparse development pattern. In order to stimulate planned development in these areas, the following policies apply. 5.16U All development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned and compatible land uses are desireable for this area, including lot -to -high density residential, office, light industrial and commercial land uses. 5.18U Existing residential properties will be protected from incompatible land -use development in this area. Screening and buffers will be incorporated into all development requests in this area. 18. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 6 20. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 21. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in detached houses in that zone; that the Applicant is not planning detached single family houses but is planning single story town houses with a minimum square footage of 1,228 square feet. 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi -family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 23. 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 . 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 7 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." 25. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, 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, town houses 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." 26. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 8 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. 29. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 30. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 0 0 "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 31. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 32. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 33. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved 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 JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 10 0 0 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 34. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the 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 application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 11 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; that the Applicant must submit the written consent of the title owners for this annexation and zoning. 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF 6 CL Page - 12 0 0 connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, pressurized irrigation; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de - annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled, if annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de -annexation; that the Applicant JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 0 0 shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. That proper and adequate access to the property is not available and a variance is necessary to allow the length of the cul-de-sac. 14. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns; that the consent of the titled owners to annexation and zoning must be submitted prior to annexation; that if their consent is not given the land shall not be annexed. 15. That it is concluded that the policies found in paragraph 17. of the Findings of Fact are important and, as a condition of annexation, must be met; that the Applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary plat and the process for that application meets the conditional use processing requirement of 5.16U; that the 5.17U policy indicates that low -to -high density is allowed in the area and thus the request to zone the property R-8 is compatible for the area; that the project is an infill project, but the Applicant must take all measures to protect the surrounding residential areas that are not zoned R-8; that the requirement of 5.18U must be strictly adhered to; that to meet the 5.17U requirement it is likely that more than a six foot fence around the exterior may be required; that the Applicant shall submit a plan as to how the lots in Doris Subdivision and Gem Park Subdivision shall be buffered as a condition of annexation; that this plan must be submitted and approved by the City prior to an annexation ordinance being adopted JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 14 E E and shall be part of the development agreement. 16. That as a condition the comments of the City Engineer and City Planner must be met, including execution of a development agreement. 17. That it is also ultimately concluded that the Application for annexation and zoning should be granted if the above conditions are met, including that the Applicant meet the representations made to the Commission and provide adequate buffer and screening for the adjoining residential areas. 10. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does not desire to meet the above requirement that the property should 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 of Law. ROLL CALL HEPPER VOTED ROUNTREE VOTED SHEARER VOTED ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 RECONMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that property should be annexed and zoned R-8 if the Applicant meets the conditions stated herein, and any adopted by the City Council; if the Applicant shall not meet these conditions and those adopted by the City Council, the Application should be denied. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 16 11-2-401 F so land must be annexed before plat? 11-2-408 B 15 Definition - Industrial - heavy as opposed to light - see Manufacturing 11-2-409 - Change to add industrial or Heavy Ind. 11-2-410 - Change to state requirements for Industrial or Heavy Industrial. Do we want to say "No" to cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, goats, rabbits, birds or poultry shall be raised or maintained in the City; this was in the old old ordinance. R-8, 15, 40 Do we want changes in these zoning districts or eliminate them? Changes in single family detached houses square footage requirement square foot requirements for duplexes, tri, quad - per unit (see 11-2-411 I) 11-2-411 Repeal or only require it if houses are going to be less than 1,300 sq. ft. and are in zones R-8 or 15. 11-2-411 H How about garages or carports for more than just single family dwellings? 11-2-413 B ? ? ? on this 11-2-414 C 7 e Add R-2 and R-3 this Ord. 11-2-416 E1 State the size of notice that must be places and that it must be legible and not capable of damage by weather. 11-2-416 E 2 Change so that the commission can deny an application and that is where it stays unless appealed. 11-2-416 F Changes to this Ord. 11-2-417 D Change 11-2-420 A Require and publicize that Zoning Certificates Page 1 0 • must be obtained for any use of land or building 11-2-420. 11-2-423 Amend ? on Administrative fines 11-2-425 Amend to add new maps and add sections on page 93 11-2-423 Change to add similar ideas as sewer pre- treatment Ordinance penalties. 9-601 Require approval of annex and zoning before preliminary plat; but this section says one- stop shop 9-604 C 6. d. Legal description must be prepared by Idaho licensed land surveyor 9-604 C 6. m. show pressurized irrigation] 9-604 C 6. n. Mandatory CC & Rs. for residential, commercial & industrial 9-604 C 6. s - add proposed development agreement 9-604 C 8 - do we need to add a provision that basically states notification to other agencies must be 15 or x days prior to the hearing---?? is are we giving agencies enough time to respond? 9-604 C 6. n. require Homeowners Assoc. w/ Mandatory due to and 9-605 I maintain common area and any planting strips, etc. 9-604 C 8. b. req. only one publication 15 days prior - check if we are publishing for 2 weeks. 9-604 C 10 b. delete the word "finding" - possibly change to "action" Do we want to change: 11-9-604 C 10 c. change to 70 days and state that denied plat goes no further unless appealed and the appeal is granted -- then it goes to the City Council. Page 2 0 0 9-604 C 6 d licensed land surveyor 9-604 C 6 n require C C& R's 9-604 C 8 state that it will not be placed on agenda until all requirements have been met. should we send to agencies on submission to Administrator No hearing until comments received and all requirements of Administrator met 9-604 C 10. a no hearing until Administrator's requirements met. 9-604 C 10. b change "Finding" to "Action" 9-604 D 1 changes re: denial and appeal Have Administrator give report on the application at the start of the hearing both Planning and Zoning and Council 9-604 E 5 do we want this in here or should we take better advantage of it? 9-604 E. 7 should we remove "finding" from this? 9-604 G make this 30 days 9-604 H. 8 remove "findings" 9-605 G make a req. of all development and change 1 - "to screen from residential properties" 9-605 I Covenants required 9-605 L. require rather than encouraged 9-605 M Change to 48 inch tile or greater and then no tiling requirement 9-606 A add "developer" and "land being developed" or built upon 9-606 B 8. Graveled easements over sewer lines 9-613 A change to pre-treatment enforcement provision Add administrative penalties to both zoning ord. and subd. ord. Authority of Resolutions on development requirements Page 3 0 9 Provision that Final Plat Controls - not preliminary Require parks in all subdivisions in excess of acres with easements for access Conditional uses in those areas marked as Mixed/Planned Use Development in Comprehensive Plan Perimeter fences Occupancy definition changed O -lot line development - allowed - c/u - not at all Change Conflict of Interest to meet new State Code Using bare ground - OK but if associated business, use must get OK Page 4