Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFranklin Grove Commercial Center AZ ,..~ '''~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY _ COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS __ A GOOCI PIaCe LO LIVe RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D CORRIE JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY OF WALT W. MORROW GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer SHARI STILES BRUCE D. STUART, water works supt. 33 EAST IDAHO Planner 8 Zonmg Adminisvator JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 JIM JOHNSON W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief phone {208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Comrr>ussion, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 4 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of Franklin Grove Commercial Center BY: M' hael Pre ton LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Southwest comer of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P/Z _CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z _TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELiM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT} BUREAU OF RECLp,MATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ~_CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: REC~I~ED MAR 2 0 1995 CITY OF 1NERIDIAH APPLIATION FOR ANNEXATION APPROVAL & ZONING OR~ REZONE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FILING INFORMATION i I. GENERAL INFORMATION ,~" A P ` ~' l l l' l ~~ ~ ~ J~ v ~ - (PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION) -~: `..~ ~ ~ (GENERAL LOCATION) ;.. E _ ,~ ~ ~ - r (LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ATTACH YF LENGTHY) (OWNER(SL OF RECORD) (NAME) j ¢ ~ s ~ F1~F-1'J KLt l~~~ (~~ (ADDRESS) (TELE HONE NO.) ~ 7b I ~6 A~ ~'~- ~, ~ '~ /' i i ~ - ~ ~' - _ (APPLICANT) (N E) (TELEPHONE N0.) 4 7~ ! i Y [~ Cam"" ~~ o- D (ADDRESS) _ (ENGINEER, SURVEYOR OR PLANNER} ) (TELEPHONE NO.} (ADDRESS) C! .7- ~, a ~. C ~ n i a- (JURISDICTION(S) REQUIRING APPROVAL) (TYPE OF SUBDIVISION - RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL) +50 ACRES OF LAND IN CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP. (FEE) (ACCEPTED BY:) .-~ ['AC1F1C LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 143081 REVISED: February 10, 1994 REVISED: March 15, 1995 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND REZONE OF THE FRANKLIN GROVE COMMERCIAL CENTER A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 18 T. 3N., R.lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land being a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 18, T. 3N., R lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at a point marking the Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, T.3N., R. lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the Northerly boundary of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18, also said Northerly boundary being the Centerline of Franklin Road South 89°46' 18" West 1327.20 feet to a point marking the Northwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Northerly boundary and along the Westerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 South 00°29'39" West 1332.06 feet to a point marking the Southwest corner of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18; thence leaving said Westerly boundary and along the Southerly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 North 89°39'31" East 663.28 feet to a point; thence North 00°55'00" East 439.12 feet to a point; thence North 89°12'00" East 229.30 feet to a point; thence North O1°22'31" East 79.90 feet to a point; thence North 19° 11'29" West 135.60 feet to a point; thence North 02°24'06" East 115.82 feet to a point; thence North 89°42'53" East 472.78 feet to a point said point marking a point on the Easterly boundary of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 Section 18 also said Easterly boundary being the Centerline of Locust Grove Road; thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline North 00°31'23" East 565.45 feet to the point of beginning, comprising of 30.46 acres, more of less. Pacific Land Surveyors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of--way of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of land. Prepared by: PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS JTE:EDM John T. (Tom) Eddy, P.L.S. ~. Shekinah Industries, Inc. 420 Bitteroot Drive, Boise, Idaho 83709 (208) 375-2647 March 15, 1995 Ms. Shari Stiles, Planning Administrator City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Ms. Stiles: You are aware that I have been attempting to develop the property at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads into a medium density residential project. I have met with yourself and several planning and zoning and councilmen to get input to my proposal. Although I was proceeding well with the development, it became apparent last week that the City of Meridian prefers to have a commercial zone in this area rather than residential. Shortly after hearing this, I set up a meeting with my neighbors along the east side to get their input. These neighbors preferred a commercial development over a medium density residential development, so I decided to change my plans accordingly. Please accept this application to annex and rezone 30 acres at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads from R-T to a C-G zone. To aid the discussion of this request, I am including a concept plan for the area so we can see how this property ties into the Central Valley Corporate Park and the I-84 Business Park. You will find a 1" = 100' map of the concept, 30 1" = 300' maps of the concept and 30 1" = 600' maps of the vicinity with the two existing commercial projects. Although these maps show good traffic circulation and mixed commercial areas, it should be stressed that more research will need to be accomplished before I submit an actual preliminary plat request for this area. This concept is merely to show the City of Meridian how this property could tie into existing traffic circulation and adjoining non-developed properties. The current land use on the 30 acres is one home and pasture land for cattle and horses. Due to the property's location to Locust Grove and Franklin Roads and two existing C-G commercial centers, this property will provide needed Shari Stiles March 15, 1995 Page 2 traffic circulation and room for Meridian's continued commercial growth. The close proximity to both the Meridian and Eagle interchanges provides excellent access to these parcels from the I-84 Interstate freeway. The Industrial zoning to the north and the Commercial zoning which currently touches the southwest corner of this parcel lends to the use of this property as Conunercial. The Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, State Police Training facility is constructed within 500 feet of the southwest corner of this property. The development of the Franklin Grove Commercial Center will provide a new entrance to the overall commercial area which will encourage traffic to utilize the Eagle Interchange and Franklin Road to enter this area. This will reduce traffic congestion along East First Street and should improve the construction schedule for ACHD to consider improving Franklin Road from Eagle Road to Meridian Road. A 20 foot landscape easement will be provided along the frontage of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, along with sidewalks. The main collector road proposes a 60 foot ACRD right-of-way with a 41 foot street and sidewalks on both sides. It is apparent from the 8 "x11" area map that access around the State Police site will be enhanced significantly with this proposal. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be a "priority development area." (Sec. 5 / 15U). The Franklin Grove Commercial Center will be in conformance with Sections 5.6 through 5.15U on page 28 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. These sections specifically refer to this area. In addition, a Commercial C-G zone seems to meet with both Meridian City leaders and adjacent neighbors' ideals for this area. Your consideration of this application for annexation and a rezone to C-G will be greatly appreciated. I will try to locate a different site to propose my residential R-8 Townhouse project on. Please call if you have any questions regarding this application request. Sincerely yours, S HINAH INDUSTRIE ,INC. . Michael Preston President .-~ .-. ~ „~ _ ~ / .~, KA, L_... ~' 1 1 ,}'_ 7'' ~ F N ~ ~., r _.` ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ -. ~ ~d .. ° 43 v ,~ ' 3 ~ 3 7 ~ ~ _ ' ~ st I ~~nn ~ ~ : ~~ V I I ~` " ~ ' ~ ~ M~ ar ZJ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4~~ `I z~ ~ w I ~~ t~ ~ ~ , y a ~ ~ Y I ""I ~ - ~ k ~ 0 8 ~~ (((~~~ C ~ ~._ r 1 w u ', ~Y Y ~ ~ ~ ~ i w ~ , '/ i ,.-~ ., ;% ., ~ ~3 ~ "~ "~ .. « 1 ~_~' -rte a ~ ~~s -"',1 ~ d'' _~~ _ ___ \ ~ ~ ~ '` ~~ ~ r~ ~ /'s ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~'``, F'o- ~ ~ °-_~ ~~4~~ ~~ ~oa~ ~ ~ y~e~a ~ ~oo°a - 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ " V b ~ a~WO ~w~ S ~ J N!y~ ~o Z o ~ ~° N`gW$~~,$~-q.~ e0. ~~ ~=I3}0~gt p !O, ~~F~s 4 nl~'~~~aS3~~W84~ d~ h ~~ ~~ Zn ~ Z _z° L ~~'~ ~ ~ uW~~ W ' zan ~ ~ ~~ K~~~~Jil W ~n1 ~ Q s nq \ ~JclaQ jai hi oca90 "/m ~Y°IV Wo ro~ ~ ._.) U ~ z2oWZ ~ ~ ~ ~9~ e~lu~ 1n~"-c9 W3 u5~~~ i 49 Z ¢ Q= ~r~m~ ~ W oe~¢J~m~O e~m~ ~ivi p:2~3~ ~ ~W~ ~ X a ~° a ti '~ a w. ~vi44~ Q ~ lU °' ~ m V N ~~ ~~ 2 in a ~ ~ ~~w ~ ~ 2 4' 2 ~ ~ ~ w~ U Q ~ b Qb/ob( N 11 ~ N~t~,~~ y i ,.~. - -- _- ~ i ~ '~ = I i~ - c I ~ C9 ,; LL - ~ y a _ - _ ~ U a ~ ~ _ ~ ° 1i~ 4 4 ~ ~-__1 iN ~l~L,t~ ~~~ O 0 I ~ ~ W-7 I ~ V bhp f, liii, ^~4 JJDII ~ _ --__ v T I. I ~JO V y _ - ~. ~3g `~ ~ _ _ _ a° o I i~ -_- _ \ #Yi~1~3~fblO ~ - .~ W n d0 w ~ W Y ? ~ ,~ - 2 ~ i. I I_ ~ ~-' ~ _ - ~ J Q F __ V N ~ _ __ ~/~IdO - i i ; i ~<, ~ - - :~ ;, t ti ° ~-^ i i ~_ , ~,,, 4 ~.- ~:.~ ` y-' ~,~~ ~ v ~°`~ "_ ,~ ~-, ~ . w ~, ~. , Q ~.~~, ~ „~.~=~. 2. 2~_ ~.~.-Ally PFMD01 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel 51118110050 Code Area 242 Type Qty Name MCCLURE MONTE C & BEVERLY J 010 2.160 100 .500 Buyer 310 C/O 990 Address 1475 E FRANKLIN MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 94/10/11 By ASR_OTT Total Legal PAR #0050 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N 1E #8842844 03N01E180050 3N 1E 18 2/07/95 14:00:11 Value ACTIVE 1363 32500 Bank Code KCM 108900 Lien Code 50000- Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code * Anexation From: To: 92763 Exemption Hardship 0 Property Zoning RT Flag Address 01475 E FRANKLIN RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF I CR I CR PFMD01 Parcel Name Buyer C/O Address 95 S1118110060 ROBERSON ARC ERNESTINE M 185 S LOCUST M A S T E R U P D A T E Code Area 242 Type Qty 3IE TRUMAN & 120 1.040 340 990 GROVE 2/07/95 14:00:31 Value ACTIVE 32500 104000 Bank Code 50000- Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 86500 MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 94/10/11 By ASR_OTT Total Legal PAR #0060 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N 1E 03N01E180060 3N lE 18 Exemption Hardship 0 Property Zoning RT Flag Address 00185 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY OCC. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ( 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF I CR ~ CR PFMD01 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel S1118110300 Code Area 242 Type Qty Name IVADCO INC 010 3.370 100 .500 Buyer C/O Address 1701 REGAL DR BOISE ID 83704 - 0000 Last Change 86/01/28 By ASR_MAP_2 Total Legal PAR #0300 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N lE #8603209 03N01E180300 3N 1E 18 2/07/95 13:59:45 Value ACTIVE 2126 10000 Bank Code Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 12126 Exemption Hardship 0 Property Zoning RT Flag Address 00000 FRANKLIN AVE KUNA ID 83634-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR PFMDOl 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel S1118110020 Code Area 242 Type Qty Name MCCLURE MONTE C & BEVERLY J 010 2.860 320 Buyer C/O Address 1475 E FRANKLIN RD MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 88/09/08 By ASR_MAP_2 Total Legal PAR #0020 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N lE #8842844 03NO1E180020 3N 1E 18 2/07/95 14:00:03 Value ACTIVE 1804 1300 Bank Code KCM Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 3104 Exemption Hardship o Property Zoning RT Address 01475 FRANKLIN ID Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax Flag D.D. ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR ~ ~ I ~~0~/T.Tt ~ ~~ ~~ ccrL~ am an owner or legal representative of a portion of the Aspen Grove Estates Property . I reside at ~ ~/ ~ ,~ ~ ~i2+t~wic<.i~t/ ~2s~ , Meridian, Idaho 83642. Please accept this document as my request and authorization of annexing and rezoning my property as applied for by D. Michael Preston in the Aspen Grove Estates PUD. I hereby grant my approval of the stated annexation and rezone request. Pr arty Owner STATE OF IDAHO } } County of Ada } On this ~__ day of , gS , before me the undersigne.dn, a Notary Public in and for said State, persona 1 1 y appeared //'/~~ (, . ~~(~ ('~~~_ , known or identified to me to be the owner of a portion of the proposed Aspen Grove Estates project located at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he execute the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first ,above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at Boise, Idaho My Commission Expires: /~-~ I /~76 •vrrs__ t_. ~~11s~~~~,~./•!~s ~,D~i~ of ~V.~DCO~,,~i~. c. am an owner or legal representative of a portion of the Aspen Grove Estates Property. I reside at /S/7~~, %~i+i~~i~ !~t'~ Meridian, Idaho 83642. Please accept this document as my request and authorization of annexing and rezoning my property as applied for by D. Michael Preston in the Aspen Grove Estates PUD. I hereby grant my approval of the stated annexation and rezone request. ~ ~ /l~s ~ D~~~i P operty Owner STATE OF IDAHO } } County of Ada } On th i s ~0 7~-- day o f ~~ ISM , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in ~d for said State, personally appeared '~~'/u./'C.._ , known or identified to me to be the owner of a portion of the proposed Aspen Grove Estates project located at the southwest corner of Franklin and Locust Grove Roads, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he execute the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written. / ~, Notary Pub 1 i c f oY~ Idaho Residing at Boise, Idaho My Commission Expires: Jd-~~ ` sa ~~ ~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on August 15, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Michael Preston, for annexation and zoning of approximately 30 acres of land located in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 18, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the Southwest corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 24th day of July, 1995. ~~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY ~ LERK NOTICE OF HEARING /'\ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p. m. , on November 21, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Michael Preston, for annexation and zoning of approximately 30 acres of land located in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 18, T.3N, R.1E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the Southwest corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspecfion during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 2nd day of November, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI C ERK t ~ ~~ I I I i I d s~ ~ I ~p'~.. I ~ ~ ~ ~i~Q~ i 1 I I i I ~ o ~ i 'ti o I I i ~ i ~ ~ I i ~ ~ I i ~ I I i I ~ L---------- I I i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I j I I ' j ~ i~ , ~~- - - I I i ~i i i i i ~- --! -.~ I ~ ~I I I~ ~ '~ I 1 I~ '~ 4--J i i F F \ ~ ~ /'~ NOTICE OF HEARING /'~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on April 11, 1995, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Michael Preston, for annexation and zoning of approximately 30 acres of land located in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 18, T.3N, R.1E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located on the Southwest corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. The Application requests annexation with zoning of C-G. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 20th day of March, 1995. i~~~--- a WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK ^ r~ j~ PFMD01 Parcel 95 81107449110 M A S T E R U P D A T E Name BUILDERS Cade Area 03 MARKETPLACE TYPe Qty Value 2/16/95 11:04:11 INC ~ 170 20.530 ACTIVE 307900 Buyer C/O 390 391 918400 Bank Code Address 1300 E F R ANKLIN 384000 Lien Code , . Prepaid MERIDIAN L.I.D. ID Bankrupt 83642. - 0000 Sub.Code ~ Last Change : 94/05/10 B .Y : ASR_DONNA Anexation From: Legal PAR #9110 OF S2SE4 Total To: 16103.00 SEC 7 3N 1E #449100-449200-4390p0-C Exemption M3N1E0079110 3N IE 07 Grp 182 Typ 000 Ap Property Hardship 0 Address 01300 E FRANKLIN R Zoning I-L Flag D MERIDIAN F2=Select F3=Ex_it FS=Correct dp c AL l ID 83642-0000 D.D. Qcc. 0 M e Noti e F6=Letters Tax F10= ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ! LC}G CLQSED ~ PRT CUFF I CR ~ CR Nlo~~~ ~N. G©wt p~~ s~ w ~-~ E~~L ~ QorS~- lD 8"~~764- PFMD01 Parcel 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E S1107449999 Name Code Area 242 MADDEN FAMILY TRUST Type Qt Y 2/07/95 13:56:05 Value Buyer MADDEN RAL$H & NOLA TRUSTEES 010 190 18.180 ACTIVE 10627 C/O .500 Bank Code Address 1620 E FRANKLIN RD Lien Code Prepaid MERIDIAN L.I.D. ID Bankrupt 83642 - 0000 Sub.Code Last Change : 91 10 07 B / / Y = ASR2_FAUCE Anexation From: Legal E2SE4SE4 EXC R/W Total To: 10627 SEC 7 3N 1E #9148768 03N01E079999 Exemption 3N 1E 07 Property Hardship 0 Address 01620 E FRANKLIN RD Zoning RT Fla MERIDIAN F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Correct dp AL l g ID 83642-0000 D.D. Occ p e Notice F6=Letters . FROMTax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOS ED ~ PRT OFF CR C R PFMDOI 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel S1118121150 Code Area 242 2j16/95 11`08:17 T Name MERIDIAN CEMETERY DIST yPe Qty Value ACTIVE 810 9.180 Buyer Bank Code C/Q TERRY MCMORROW SEGY Lien Code Address 1009 W 4TH Prepaid L.I.D. MERIDIAN ID Bankrupt 8.3.642 - 0000 Sub.Code Anexation Last Change 90/08/31 By ASR_TADDIC From. To: Legal PAR #1150 OF NW4NE4 Total SEC 18 3N lE 03NO1E181150 3N 1E 18 Exemption 63-105A Property Hardship 0 Address 00000 E FRANKLIN Zoning RT Flag ID F2=Select F3=Exit FS=CorrectedpNoti AL ! 1 MTa D.D. Occ. 0 ce F6=Letters F p x ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX I 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR PFMD01 95 M A S T E R LT P R A T E Parcel S1118131380 Code Area 03 2 /16!95 11:09:50 Type Qty Value Name HENDREN'S INC ET AL ACTIVE 180 5.000 45000 Buyer Bank Code C/O Lien Code Address PO BOX 9077 Prepaid L.I.D. BOISE ID Bankrupt 8.3707 - 0000 Sub.Code Anexation Last Change 94/10/11 By ASR©TT From: To; Legal N2NE4SW4NE4 Total 45000 SEC 18 3N lE #9069403 #9324796 Exemption M3N1EF181380 3N 1E 1$ Property Hardship 0 Address 00000 N STRATFORD Zoning C-G DR Flag BOISE ID F2=Select F3=Exit FS=CorrectedpNotic AL ! 1 MTa D.D. Occ. 0 e F6=Letters F 0 x ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ! LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR PFMD01 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel S1118120605 Code Area 242 Type Qty Name RIVERS LEROY 120 1.050 340 Buyer 990 C/O Address 1175 E FRANKLIN MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0.000 Last Change 94/10/11 By : ASR_(7TT Total Legal PAR #0605 OF NW4NE4 SEC 18 3N 1E 03N01E180605 3N 1E 18 2/16/95 11:12:01 Value ACTIVE 29500 50800 Bank Code 25400- Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 54900 Exemption * Hardship 0 Property Zoning R1 Flan Address 01175 E FRANKLIN RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 I LOG CLOSED ( PRT OFF S CR ~ CR PFMD01 95 M A S T E R U P D A T E Parcel S1118110153 Code Area 242 Type Qty Name BROWN NORMAN W & JANET C 120 3.690 340 Buyer ~ `~ 0 C/O Address 385 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83.642 - 000.0 Last Chanc3e : 94/10/11 By : ASR_ OTT Total Legal PAR #0153 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N 1E #0150 0175 C #94070255 03NO1E180153 3N 1E 18 2/16/95 11:12:37 Value ACTIVE 44200 62000 Bank Code 31000- Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 75200 Exemption Hardship 0 Property Zoning R1 Flaq Address 00385 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit FS=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR /"~ PFMD01 95 Parcel S1118110100 Name PRESSLEY FRA] VERNADENE Buyer C/O Address 255 S LOCUST M A S T E R U P D A T E Code Area 242 Type Qty !TKIE GENE & 120 1.000 340 990 GROVE MERIDIAN ID 83642 - 0000 Last Change 94/10/11 By ASR_OTT Total Legal PAR #0100 OF NE4NE4 SEC 18 3N 1E 03N01E180100 3N 1E 18 2/07/95 14:01:19 Value ACTIVE 32000 74400 Bank Code 37200- Lien Code Prepaid L.I.D. Bankrupt Sub.Code Anexation From: To: 69200 Exemption Hardship 0 Property Zoning RT Flag Address 00255 S LOCUST GROVE RD MERIDIAN ID 83642-0000 D.D. Type 1 REAL Roll 1 PRIMARY Occ. 0 F2=Select F3=Exit F5=Corrected Notice F6=Letters F10=Tax ALT-F10 HELP ~ VT-100 ~ FDX ~ 9600 N82 ~ LOG CLOSED ~ PRT OFF ~ CR ~ CR ~ ~ Print Kf y '~,~,it~~~t ?3~SS1 V~~'1_NMC) ~iDq~~? S1g2i~£36 C'i~~jl~:~y C;F~vit~F . . AF'0~1 t1 S ~= t, . . . . ~~ ~ i~ ,~~i ~~~ ~.' ~ c Fi P F NfD p 1 9 4 t+i A ~~ _~ ~: F< <i ~~ D A T E i-'~;f'c~ I ~ 1 i i E~ 5 1 U 1 1`, ': ~c'? !.e'._s~ .~~.? i y~,_ r~,+~~, r• r~;s, ^-: M S "i" t~ t< ~~ ~; Y . _ "t ~ :? h; i i _r;•, C3 1 ~ c? :? ' _, t >J ~ s ~ ~'• ' .. h?F.~ iG:IArd IC' ~c!'at r~'1,ait!7~ ~C11 1 G~n r~ ~•y ~'=h j'~~r~nar~ f UT ~Et 1~S ?r4 1F. F' t~ ? / 1 C~ ;` 3 4 ~:f~~_r: ? ~ ~t~~ ~._. t( ,, ~'', " , }.._ ! i;: ; it l' i ; ~ ~ u : - F~1flt3 f7:-r~~7'i E.1i'(?12h ;~s~ ;t_ 7~ H;~r-c;:-, f;;{~ 4~; Q A d ti r• ~ ._ s 0 0 :3 ;3 ~ ~ I_. r_ ~ t~ iJ T a ~~ C' 1~ F ~^ ~~'``~ of r ~K ~r ~ . ~ ~ ~ r o -- - .~ V ~.~. ' ~: F~. rf~. i_ F' n j 1 5 f ' F ~'1 ', F; 'Y ~ r C:. .. F ~-`•~l~ct I=3=Exit' F5=Corr~t~~i__~I t~otic•~ r6=L~+± c-~; ~ ~~. _ ~ /'~ f'r'i Ott ~;~'y ~%C%fF~ii•?__ 5738S~1 V2R2NiQ 9209?5 4102i43C~ C'i~;~,l~y C1FVic:~- l',f~'r_rGi lJs~r ~~K Ni~~ Uw~~R P F= hiD 0 1 g t: h1 A S T ~' k t_I P D A 1• E F='.,rc~ 7 ;=~ 1 1 1722340 5 :ode Ar~._-± :'4? i y~:; r,-t,y ~, P.:~nlc F[~fiTF'd~.:rY"~:ty GERI,i_C, t_ c~z C''~ESR~'; N Ct 1 t) 1 Ci, f39t? 1 00 > ~j l(j Ctiy~r 320 :~ / ~:, /r- ~', ~} ~i r ~ ~ a 1 ~~ ~ 1 4.~ is i 'µ 1;, i1 02/ 1 0/~!4 2j1G/~34 ,: . ~. Va 1 ue ~~~ ; :i v _ 7521 1 Ot)00 f~ r:t<' i~~ L. . J . i_ - ~t l_ ~ 'a` '#: C i % t3 r`: `3 ~ J 1 / 0 ~ / ? 0 ~' y . f~ ~~ ; _ 'i- ~--i r~ rti~; ~ ,, t_.-g::?1 ~'/~R #340~~ ~~'~ ~ ; 1"cs~_nl ?2•t?i Nt~'4t~~W~ 11,, r'~ [[~~ j~ 'Tt :: .j .1 ~~ V t) y' V ~t9C%17~~~s': `t~ ~ i'v rt ~ ~: I .r -' °~_ .- "'y ' r;_. ~ ~- a 7 t'? Ct ~,. ~.; ~.: ~i = ~i t7 _ . Cat? ? C{• .. i '•. Ft F\ ~: i . + ~ . f~7~ ,riNC~_ Y-,"i=C"r~~. ~•S=..C'ir'r''cC,;''~._rj 1r sir C' J_. - ~ _ /'~ Pr~i nt Key C}utput 573£3'=:=~1 V2R2M0 920~2~~ ~1t~2it+E3C~ Di sP 1 e~y C~Fvi cF At=`00 1 tiv~r . Ash M~'?Cr~ER PFMD(31 Sts M A. '~ T F k !~ P D A T' E Parc~1 511172233~3Q voce Aria 242 Tya~._ (;qty f': ~ ~ ii c' UJ r.= 7 ~~ ~ -. F~ f; ~ 1 ~:~ ;. ~;. ~~~ ~ ~ f t ;. r.. `' 1 ~? . 5 C? f7 ~A F~. tt ~ D 1 ~? i'J T G! i_,~st C.h,an~? ~5/Q5%~~t+ Dy 1 ~~t;~ 4 F~ ~ ; ~. 2/ 1 D/:34 1 0 : <: ": r~ ~ U r ,fl 4~ ~ ~ 't' }~:. 345 ~~f~f1J ~;f~ra~<. ~~;. _ !..I._ . 1~..' 4 tl ~f 1 - ~.: :J ~. A tl E: X ~ ~~ ~-. - L/c?ts5 C33T,:~t'1>;ii~~~~U _~i~ :~. i '"{:'~1"'(i_=:iliC: V:~ Q AQC'~t'~'~_r'+ Q~~~6Q ~.'_~~. ~J•JT l'S{\~~~F: ~'iJ MEkTF`~.i:~~x~ l~i ~Jk>:1[':!1_l:_e:_ ~; .~. V ~ v ~ fi F- A. s _ ~;' !~ i 5 ~' F; J i~5.tq f; '+( 1:~ s:; C < C~ ~7-~.~~~Ct ~~=EX1T FJ-.71"'1"'~C.j.1~,r~ ~1O1=1'C~ i= -1...,t1rr!"';. F~?-t'3~~CC ~~C±C~. _: _ - ~ /'~ / ~ o ~. ~. 1 V~ ~ Imo. L ~1 ~~ ~~ .! ~~ ~ •~ :~ .. i ll :? 7 4 C 4+ Gis~lay L;Fv~ce f~F'Ci05 ' F' ~ M U g i y 4 tt t~ :~ l E F~ i_~ F' ti A l E. Farce I ;:~ t 7 1 "]22326q Code l~r~_=~ 24'' Ty~,4 ~~-y P~l~me C'~_~LLTP G~:'•Y i_ & ^Ail~~F;t~ L i 2i? 3 < 1 2q =; Li i3 Euy~r _. ,_ .: / r', f5dcfrs ~~ F:9 i 5 ~•TkF;WEiEF'r Y Rq r CS G2/iU/c~~+ ii~;t; , 2/ 1 q/94 t 0 : 4 Value ACTIVE. 3i1gG L,Z.D. 8 a r~ 't r- ~~uL~.C~:~~_ ~,:~at' _f'i~ll~c ~lj/q~/fit 4:, _ ~9_`'\ _ _~!`~~~~~~ v 1'ct~l FtiSi)fr >: X'. ~! E`..- _ c; F ':_ i ~ ~ ~ ~ t F: t ~.' CS , .. _~ ~. ! t? _ c. .`- it r: 3Y a i f': { % F`I F ~: ~ f ,i ]" tt i'J 1 ~ . ~° ". i. ~? 1 ~; .! `~ '_' , . /'~ r:? 3i`=`' 1 :~;-_'~'„ref) G._092~ =' 10214~t~ F'~=~iC~r,1 0~~ ~ r-. .SAT ~ F'1~ ~i N C' A ~T t. }-' .# I ' i_'. ^' I . ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ? ~ ~t V G !.. C ~ 4 f= I~ C' i} j 4 ? T Y ~'.' '•.a! ~, y. r' t "~ ` r f'- ~`d ~, rr,.~ _~ H l1'r E F_ ~~ Gtr E R 7 . ~ `; _1. ~: ~ ~: E ~,) tY A. ~ i % t~ 4 . ~? t) t7 z is i '. , r ' '. ~i C7 Y' ' _ ! tt G i. ~ s. p ii i 'rap i~1~~1GIA~~ zr'' 83~>4? - 1)000 l_~y ~t Ch~~ Ii~e ~~'i/G3/ 15 Ey A'=K _TAGOZ:~ .~ l c~ i.. ~, I #OC118:'i)0 F'u~~E v~ i ~,~~ A~Txt'E 1-' i ' ~ ~v r~ '1 iI 1. ', ~..r~, E~nkrupt ~~ u b , C c~ci'_ Anex~t-i o±~ 6~'bt?_I !! ]]Alt 5 r .~ .., T` < ~ C _ if .1 "t `1 ('. I S% ,.' f ~ :? .% .. ( y~ ~i ~ i'~ (': = (} ~ ._ _ ~ 1 ,: ~ Cl .~ ! . , r. _ `~ 1 i-) .. F. ~.~ f- { ri ~'J : c. 1 ! ": 7. ~) i_' . f' 7 ~ .. :. ~ F !~.~ f J = ~" i~ '~., G- [~~ _. ~~ ; (~ f" I'• c' C' ', r"".' ~ { ~ J (`a'!, I _~ _ F ~i _. I . ' `~~ i` ;' I`~ ; ~ 1' Yy ::. ~' c , r: C. A <.~ ~ ~' F:::: _ ~ - . :~13t~w~1 V?~:1~1U J>C1Q25 ~1Uj14£~U C~is~alMy C~~F~vic~:. ~5~001 P ~ Ni D C) 1 9 ~- f+1 t. .: ? E. R ti ~' D ~. 1' E. 1-' r'.~' f"` G c. ~I ~ 1 1 1 ~ i 2 0 t3 6 0 t~: C• ::~ c: ~'. t" :~+ ;' 4 ~ y !? r r~« V P ;;,a}~ Ai~Yx ::':.}IC_i}E:R It~~ l;hY>"~ ~~ 1 i7 0 <'?6t, AMY' x _~~ME:: i~ E~ i! y ._ ~,c_,1;.F I~ ~37Ci4 - C,C?~fC L~::~1 F'AQ' #C?66C) 0?= D~bd4t~dE4- ~.'~.:%+?314 Pages 1 x/10/94 10:~`s:1±== a a i u!._ A~?~YV~ 3649 ~~n1t i~oca~_ i='r~~~r~i ~; C~~~~tikrtj~~. Any x.r~; i c:~, 364.raa t) -7 :'i :3 ~ is ~ ~% Ei tr ;.: ( i`; f i r, f? r +' Ci ~~ i} "~ K (i ~) ~/ r y ~7 F 1 ice: t: '~, L r' ;_7 i 1 1-' ~; y ~~ ti: ^~ Y ..! i1 C f~ 1 ~- ,. _ ~ ." .: f r ~ = ~ X `~ 1- ~ ~! -- C C7 7" t'' ~ C-: Y. _. (; Pt C+ ~_ ~ C' : F i.~ = ~ _. %. 1: ~ * i' ; ~= ~; _ F .^ .: ~ .: ~. C3 ~j 1"' ~_:; ~ t - . . ~ivsi4_? i':'S2tfCJ t~`'(1c,~~ ~1>1'?fL~G C~it;~l~y C~~vic:~ AF'npg F' F f`tn ~ 1 y tr rt r, '_~ ?" E~ ~ i_i F' Ci c. 1 E= F-' -, t" CG ~- i ~' t 1 t f3 t ~_' U ~~ C7 L C: L? C~ r A t" r c~? .' 1, " ~ y' :? ,: ;i;~ 7, y r~ rn ~ L. z t. E ,_i C:i ~-; i'.~ i~~ y C~ E: R. ~~ ~: 1 2 [! . 2 ~ Cl E~~ y_. ~~, ~ ~`, r+t i. k l :; ~ .A r~ ~ r Ci 4 1 - () C1 Cf C.i F~~E i(?aUCi 723C~0 ~~t?k +~c~d~~ t-Gfi C;qC~- F r~ ~_ ~~ ~ i cl f.,I.G. u t3 E? (4 t, 1.17 '- ~~t_b > Co ~_ Anexr+ + are ~>~~r, G ,1. rl (; ' ~; I ~t; (i ~i ~i .S i'J ~ ~. i t !~ cl j Cf ^ it i ~- ~ ~7 [7 - i" J j/ ~J ~ ~ e: ~ ~ L ~ ;) ~ i I N ~`; . i 1.j id ^. Y• ~.) f. >` i a . 'C' .~ ~ Y". x , i. ~ :- ~.' (> t ~. ;`. ~-. v` f ~~ rv r~ ~ ? ~: e, t' _ ~ i_.. ?..t G i... ,~i G ~i ~ ~i c (,~ C': ~ C'f ~ T' t_ c, ~' ~" ! • - .. . ~ ~ ~r3~~ci`,1 b'~fi'Z~o cif{)g1 ,~ [[-,.cc ~{ R F'`~_ ~ r ~r L.+ ( (~ : . ~~~ t~i~~~~l ~E ~: (' ~ hi L; Cl 1 t ~ t} ~=' ° t+i ~ ~' T E F,' !_! ~' . Ci ~ 1" E 2 / 1 0 / ~ 1 1 (i t fir _F1 : 5 1 f%1 1oC)rr0 rti ~•oc1:= ~r•==- ? ~ ; ~ Y . T. ~C~ ~~ ~rri~ .;~~~:.k~~C==~~ r.i11. r,7~. "f E;lt~~~~ :~~ <~, ~ C, j o~+0 _ . - 1 ~;jfi[t ~Rt~E;;TFNk: i~ 3t~.r; 9~GO0 0 ~. ~ n•1rf;:lt?IArJ _ .~, ~• S~n4<ri!;~t 8342 - {3{iC~( An~<xR*., ,.;~-. 1_.yst Cf,.~n~~ gy . "i o f ._,1 t 1 {, t7 f i ~~ E. ~' 1 ~ 3 rv 1 c E~ ~_~ o~r~o 1 ~ 1 ~(~c}too :~r~ 1 ~ ~ ~ t1~i-~~ n; ~ t;~_, zor-i; ;,:. ~, ~~ t=3-t.xi~ fi 5=~~nr~i°f•c~fi,_c? f~o1`?c. F`n=t ti - _•= er :: F.?-A.;uoc Ac!cr _., ~ ~ ~'t'~ i rtt t;F y I:lrt~~t ti P _; „ :i73q;~•~• 1 V?R2P10 9 X0925 x:102 9486 02/ 1 G/~?~+ C~iC~l ay t:~Fvic~~ AF'DOi t1FMD01 q4 M A ~~ 1" E ~ kI ~ E} /~ T E. 2/ 1 0/cr:; G :: III F~arc~ 1 G 1 1 1 q 9 1007 0 CorJ~ Ar~:=a ~42 TYpi:• ~t,T:y V~1 uM A~. ; i'. ,_ ~~~~rr.= t~17THEt~~L!. JA~1~:. ~ F_ Atv;.! i?t? 1.C1~'C, 1.?tr0 340 f 2500 earl<: I:. <. E•l,y~,- Gy _ / ~ . v_ .r.ii t.J c~ it % ~ ~. nn.. ` qq ' ~: >_ . tJ .~' P~ It ! c` ! 4 1? i) ? ~] '> a i q C ~ ti _. I. sY- r~ .j {, ~' t! i [_ t. I l:- r`' ~~ :~ I 1 ~~ t,i °..~ "l U ~/,J 1 C~r~ ^~ I 1. T+ ~~ % ~ r~ yl {1 :-,~ ~~ ~( fi C.7 't{. 1 ~ F~ ~_ ." q 11 ? !. _ (~1( ( 1 f ~.. _ ., i 1 i.~ _ L. L.'t~'~,i ~kC1~~~ Vii) n?r*kIC'~i!~; ICS °~i~:,~-i?~- -~ .~ ~, ~ ~ 1 t<' ~ ~; ~. ~' <;• i i y F` R a t+'; ~ a:; Y Ci C C . t/ :? - ~" ,~ 1 = C ~' ~ 2 - [. a: '1 'Y F ~., ' ~ O t"' t` s=• C; -F' 's C.I ~.~ c~ *, 1 C ~~ F~ i? - l_ ~-' 7 ?- ;- i" :.• ~ `~ - ~ :. '~ ~~ C.: r'!':.~ C t" . - --` Meridian City Council December 5, 1995 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings. Any questions of the Council for staff? Is there a motion on those findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we hereby adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written on the annexation and zoning for Michael Preston, C-G, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above stated that the annexation application is denied and the City Council shall not consider annexation and zoning of this property until more definite plans of development are submitted. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST~FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0. 3 SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Kingsford: I guess my initial question is it appropriate to approve of a variance of something that hasn't been annexed. --r MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 5 1985 APPLICANT: MICHAEL PRESTON ITEM NUMBER; 9 REQUEST; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: CIF ~ ~ ~~" cPP` ~~,,~vf ~~~~ OTHER: A~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. k. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SHERINAH INDUSTRIES, INC. D. MICHAEL PRESTON ANNEXATION AND REZONE APPLICATION SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD MERIDIAN,-IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing again on November 21, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o°clock p.m., the Petitioner, Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael Preston, the matter having been heard by and before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian on April 11, 1995, the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the matter and having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but tabled the matter to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council, the Applicant. submitting additional information at the June 22, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and the City Council having held a public hearing on the annexation and zoning on August 15, 1995, having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having made a decision to deny the Application, but the Applicant having requested Council to reassess the Application due FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1 to Applicant's assertion that the Council was considering different information than the Planning and Zoning Commission had, and the City Council having deemed it appropriate to re-hear this Application for annexation and zoning, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. That proper notices of hearing were given and held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in the initial procedure for application for annexation and zoning; that notice of a public hearing on the request to reconsider the Annexation Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for November 21, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the testimony and evidence was received on the matter and duly considered at the November 21, 1995, 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. B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the titled owners are Monty and Beverly McClure and IVADCO, Inc.; that consents by the owners of record have been given to the City for the annexation and rezone of the property. C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2 -'~ .-~ and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented; that the Applicant did present a concept of what the uses for the property could be. D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density residential development to the east and south of the land. E. That Applicant has requested that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) which 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. F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land to be annexed is one a home and pasture land for cattle and horses. G. That D. Michael Preston testified at the Planning and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3 -~ n Zoning Commission that as he was meeting with various people it came to his attention that a residential zone for this area was evidently not in the interest of the City of Meridian. He stated he decided that he would look at this property from a commercial basis, so the concept that he submitted was purely a concept. This. was not something that he was ready to submit to the Commission; this request was purely for annexation and rezoning. He stated that he had high intensity service retail on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove and that someday that would be appropriate there; that he also had retail along the westerly side of this office complex. Toward the rear of the property, as we get closer to the State Training facility, he would turn that into a supply type commercial like a lumber yard or something like that, pipe supply or whatever. If the neighbors are not interested, he could re- arrange the streets very quickly and easily and leave them in peace, which he said he would definitely do if that is their desire. He stated that he was really trying hard to get along with them this time and do something that was more agreeable to them. He stated that the access road that he had there would be a very convenient rear access from the Meridian interchange to the Nahas- Hon commercial development. He thought that this was something that would be good for the City and he had every intent of developing it somewhat in that fashion with additional input. He FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4 --~ ,..~ just wanted to emphasize that the layout was concept only. He stated that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so. He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was agreeable to all of them. He also stated that hP hay QAAn +ho comments from ACHD and had no problems with them. That at the June 22, 1995, meeting Mr. Preston stated many things but in summary he testified that the he had submitted a revised concept plan which gives the Commission the idea of the type of landscaping, parking, fire protection facilities, access, ingress/egress to each of the facilities; what the office complex might look like, which could change because he does not have any tenants at this time; that there is a professional office complex next to the neighborhood homes, which is a quiet use; that he has added a six foot high masonry wall all the way around the project and with that he is trying to totally sound proof the area; also he will have a twenty foot landscape strip which is called for by City Ordinance; that with the 35 foot landscape strip they will not disturb any of the wet lands and they will not impact that in anyway and their landscaping will make it prettier than it is today; that they will not be digging in the creek and they will not impact Five Mile Creek in any way. He also testified that the spine road, with water and sewer facilities, is planned to be in by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5 --~ n next spring; that in response to a question from Commissioner Hepper regarding what can be performed on the land, he testified that they had to come back for conditional uses from the Commission to anything and that the Commission has total control over control through those conditional uses. At the City Council public hearing he testified additionally that he does not have specific tenants, that he is planning intense retail on Franklin Road and Locust Grove roads but it is not going to happen quickly, that Franklin will have to be improved to a five lane road and a traffic light installed at Franklin and Locust Grove Road before the retail is implemented; that he has uses that can be implemented now but they are in the back (south) of the development. He stated that the neighbors concern over buffering was a concern for him; that he is proposing a professional office complex, a 20 foot buffer area, and a six foot masonry wall to buffer the neighbors; that there will also be building between the neighbors and the parking areas; he also stated that the masonry wall would be between him and Mr. Brown; that his first phase would be the professional office space; that it is going to be a very nice development, with sidewalks everywhere. Regarding Five Mile Creek, he testified that it barely touched the property in the northwest corner; that when ACRD widens Franklin Road they will be concerned with the Creek and have to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6 --~ handle the wet lands and flood plain issues; he acknowledges that those are issues relating to his land but that since- they are asking only for annexation and zoning, those issues could be addressed later. That since this would be annexed as a planned commercial development, all construction details, sewer, water, and floodplain, would come back at future public hearings and be resolved; that the plan is conceptual; that irrigation canals would be tiled; that there will be pressurized irrigation. H. That there was testimony at the hearing on April 9, 1995, objecting to the Application which was principally as follows: 1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right now. The way that the City is growing with the commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be coming in at a regular rate, I don't think right now would be an appropriate time with the condition that Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near future dates so I think it would really be a detriment to our properties . I hope you will not change your zoning on this, thank you. 2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected parties that already submitted a letter in writing saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing has come out that I would like to add that we did not .know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he does represent the developer, but he had a letter of intent on this at one time and that expired last May. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7 ~ ~ ~~ 3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be totally denied. This type of development is not warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible with the residences in that area. We are, although not bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved for residential. areas and commercial in-our back yard would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our property. I. That at the City Council Public hearing there was also comment from the public which was basically as follows: 1. Ann Witherell testified due process had been violated; that she had not seen the present plat before to nights meeting; that this plat is the same as was presented before; that this is not the correct plat; that the plat was given to confuse and skew public comment. 2. Jim Witherell testified the effected parties had signed and submitted a letter that the City had; that the application is frivolous and should be denied; since there is no concept plan and that the tenants are not known this is not a legitimate application; that his previous plans have been disapproved which is good reason to deny this plan; that there is insufficient water and a shallow water table which is not being recharged and could be contaminated; that regardless of the landscaping this is still going to look like a commercial development stuck in the. middle of on square mile of R-1 housing; that the masonry wall will make it look like a fart; he suggested a berm all the way around six feet high with a three foot fence on top; that all commercial development should be planned, single story; that there should be no high density retail and no restaurants; that there biggest concern was they do not think this developer has much money and if they sue him they do not want to hit empty pockets. 3. That Albert Rennison testified that egress and exit on the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin has to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8 /'~ be address and resolved; that putting more commercial across the street from the commercial that is on the north side of Franklin does not make sense; the area is not ready for commercial development; that the Corp of Engineers has jurisdiction over the entire water shed that flows into Five Mile Creek; that if the City approves of this commercial development the developer should be required to place a bond in the event the City has liability problems because of the development at the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin; that he recommends that the zoning and annexation be denied. 5. Norm Brown testified that he asked Mr. Preston if he would continue the concrete fence to protect his land, then that is fine; if we lose the irrigation we would lose our well water. 6. Marshall Smith testified he was opposed to commercial on the south side of Locust Grove; that the wet lands have been there since before any of us and we should respect what was put there by nature; that he was opposed the Application. 7. Ted Hanson testified that ACRD had stated that they want to bring~Locust Grove Road straight to Franklin and then to the freeway and that would not be for 8 to 12 years. 8. Rod Cullip testified that before anything is done at this location, Franklin Road needs to be improved. J. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the petition sets forth objections to the Application and requests that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows: 1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development includes land owned by those objecting and they do not desire their land to be so developed. 2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9 n n Applicant's previous application prohibit this Application for development. 3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meri dian Comprehensive Plan. 4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the Application, that the Application was frivolous. 5. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also litigious. 6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wet land area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation. K. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from Wayne Forrey who testified on November 21, 1995, as follows: That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business relationship with another property owner who owned land that is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between a commercial property and a residential property. The City does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan. It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is probably something the developer or the applicant here would be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that other property owners out there may have some reservations about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning. L. That at the November 21, 1995, City Council public hearing, conducted for purposes of Applicant' s request for reconsideration, Mr. Preston read aloud a letter submitted by Monty McClure, a titled owner of this proposed application, for the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10 record, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that Mr. McClure is in support of the request of changing the zone to C- G (General Retail and Service Commercial); that he stated the time is right to now sell the property and to allow it to be developed to its highest, best and beneficial use. That Mr. Preston stated that it is still in the record that he stated that he did not have an option with Mr. McClure, but that Mr. Preston does have an option and that Mr. McClure is totally in favor of what Mr. Preston is proposing; that Mr. Preston stated that this plan is to be a phased project; that phase one would be something that could be developed right now, which was the professional office complex which is in the middle of the project; that the reason it is located in the middle is in order for it to be a buffer to the residential neighbors; that the extension of the masonry wall and access to Mr. Brown's property will be done; that there will be a sixty foot (60') right-of-way, a 41 foot back-to- back curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaped of both sides of the major collector street all the way through the center of this property in a north-south direction; that this will be a back entrance and will allow traffic from Locust Grove; that there will be bicycle paths all the way around the project and that he concurs totally with bringing the sewer and water to the property; that a plat shall be prepared showing these individual parcels; that development of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11 ~ ~ road and commencement of marketing of this project will start with approval. M. Royland Doskeland, partner of the Applicant in this application, testified regarding his enthusiasm about this project and an eagerness to proceed. N. Hoyt Mitchner, of Mitchner Investments, testified that the interest in Meridian for land and existing buildings is tremendous; that calls are received weekly from people looking for warehouse space on a need now basis and inquiring what Meridian has for availability in the areas of Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue; that they can show them about one (1) of two (2) projects and they either choose that or look for other land to buy and build. O. That Ann Witherell again testified before the Council on November 21, 1995, stating that there has been no significant new information to reconsider on this application; that Mr. Brown, the former partner of the Applicant, is selling his property and is moving; that over the past 18 months, eight ( 8 ) parties who are affected by this development, have delivered countless pages of testimony in opposition; that the four areas of concern are the wet lands and flood plain at Locust Grove and Franklin; that berming and transition to the adjoining R-1 single family residence are of concern; that the irrigation water is of concern as in previous applications of this developer he constantly plats buildings over FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12 ~ ~ ditches and easements; that this development sits atop the water table and will directly affect our water; that there is no new discovery; that the developer is a slow learner and the denial for this project should stand. P. Jim Witherell testified, restating his objections as to this project in his earlier testimony of November 21, 1995, and the definite problems it has with road development, the Ada County Highway District, and the enormous amount of traffic. Q. Morgan Plant testified that this proposed application should be rejected on the grounds that it is entirely too vague; that the plan does not fit the area. R. Elwood Rennison testified that he was under the impression that Preston was the owner of the property and that the owner not being present at these hearings shows a lack of interest to sell and develop the property; that there is a lot of land already zoned which is available, just sitting around waiting to be developed; that with this property you have too many things involved, which takes a great deal of consideration, for instance, the property owners adjacent to this development, the Five Mile Creek, irrigation, and a cemetery; that this application needs to be reviewed and a recommendation of rejection rendered. S. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments for the initial public hearings; that any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13 ~ /'1 existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9- 605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed from their domestic service but that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model and domestic water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12-inch diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road from its point of connection to existing water east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's frontage; that sewer service would be via connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line; that a new legal description needs to be submitted pursuant to Meridian City Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of- Way. T. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted comments for the initial public hearings; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process; pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout the development; plans will be required to be submitted FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14 ~ n in conformance with the requirements of Section 11-9-607; Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City; a minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped; a minimum setback of 35' beyond the required rights-of-way along Franklin Road shall be provided; a minimum landscape setback of 20' beyond the required. rights-of-way along Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum of 20' landscaped setback will be required adjacent to residential development; that Nampa & Meridian will have to be contacted for approval of any rerouting of irrigation and other water lines; that a portion of the site appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and that will have to be addressed by the Applicant. U. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the former Planning Director had comaaented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an approved development agreement. V. .That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15 n incorporated as if set forth in full. W. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. X. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact. Y. 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 and other uses. Z. That the property could be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines and facilities. AA. That it is specifically found that the Applicant only presented a concept, did not present a subdivision plat or any other specific or concrete plan of development, and only verbally informed the City Council of his intentions; that Applicant did have a concept drawing, but had nothing more than that to inform the Council of development. AB. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: 1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16 Statement. n Policies, Page 19 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land use and design within the development, and with contiguous developments; and encourage innovations in building techniques, so that the growing demands of the community are met, while at the same time providing for the efficient use of such lands. 2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road. 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and proposals for future development. 5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously- developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area, shall be harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17 residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. AC. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development.." AD. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided. AE. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states as follows: "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." AF. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18 r-~, AG. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." AH. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district. AI. That Section 11-2-416 E 2. c. provides that this Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19 i"~ may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it does not have sufficient information to make a decision. AJ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. 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. B. 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. C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20 r notice. D. 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. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. 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. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. H. 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). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21 ~"~ of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances. K. The Applicant stated and represented his intention as to the type of development, stated some possible proposed uses of the property, and stated and presented a concept of development, but did not present a plat or concrete plan as to how the property would be developed, did not present any specific uses that would be constructed there, or where on the property that uses would be constructed; it could be determined if possible uses would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but without knowing exactly what the use, or uses, will be, it is risky and hazardous to make a suggestion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22 knowing the exact use or uses that will be constructed. Additionally, the City has much more control in the annexation process than it does at any other time in the development process. Without knowing more exactly the uses, it is in the best interests of the City to forego annexation until more information is known on the specifics of the development. It is further stated that the property at Fairview and Locust Grove Road was, and is being, developed on property that has the same designation in the Comprehensive Plan as this land, which is Mixed/Planned Use Development; the developer of the Fairview and Locust Grove Road property requested annexation, zoning and a conditional use, all at the same time, but without a plat, which the developer did not request approval of until January of 1995; he did, however, know that he was going to have a storage unit business, had plans for a retail shopping center, and informed the Council what business would be the major user; he stated at the City Council public hearing on the annexation that the proposed use was for a commercial shopping center and rental storage facility and had submitted plans as to where they would be located, even though he did not present a plat; that it is therefore stated that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23 ,..~ ~ the City has approved annexations without a plat, but it had more definite and concrete statements as to uses than were presented by this Applicant. The City denied an application for annexation for JLG BUILDERS where the City determined that the plat presented did not meet the goals of the City of Meridian. Plats are a very decisive document that gives the City much needed information. Applicant did state at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so; that it is concluded that it would be in best interests of the City to have this Application pulled back until, and the property not annexed and zoned until, more specifics on the development are known by the City and the Applicant. L. That it is concluded, that since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I- 84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, states: "The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific, clans and proposals for future development.", (emphasis added), and "Development in these areas should be based on functional FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 24 ,,,~ ~ plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods." (emphasis added); that it is in the best interest of the City to deny applications for annexation and zoning unless, and until, plans for development are known and stated and/or the City has substantial knowledge of the proposed development. M. That it is concluded that it would be in best interests of the City to have this Application denied and the property not annexed and zoned until more specifics on the development are known by the City and the Applicant. N. That, as concluded above, annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function and it is in the sole discretion of the City to annex or not. The majority of the City Council, also states, that the development concept was not totally adverse to them, but what was adverse was the lack of specifics as to the development; that the Applicant presented at the November 21, 1995, very little more than it presented to the City Council at the previous City Council public hearing. O. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property would not be in the best interests of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 25 ~ ..~ /`~ Meridian. 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 COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED! COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED, COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED ,Y`~l COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED (/// MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, above stated, that the annexation Application is denied and that the City Council shall not considered annexation and zoning of this property until more definite plans of development are submitted. MOTION: // APPROVED : ~~C~,~~ ~! DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 26 Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 13 property, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ,~-~ Turnbull: I would like to know if there is any clarification needed on the square footage requirement? Kingsford: There would be if in fact and our engineer will be checking if they do meet that minimum lot size from your fence property line there would not be a requirement for a variance. ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION: Crookston: Mr. Mayor, that ordinance has not been prepare because we do not have an accurate legal description from the applicant. It is my understanding that they are putting that together. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to table ordinance #719. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table Ordinance #719 until the December 5 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Kingsford: I am sure the public that has interest in this may wonder what is going on, when the Council dealt with this last time we had improper material. We were reading from one set of music was reading from another and I have no idea what the residents out there were reading. But Mr. Preston brought that back to the Council, the majority of them though that it-would be appropriate to re-hear it. So at this time t will open that public hearing and invite Mr. Preston or his designee to begin. Michael Preston, 420 Bitterroot, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Preston: Thank you for the introduction and I want to keep this brief, I don't want to go /'~ Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 14 over the past, a lot of the things I said before I want to pretty much stay with the new stuff now realizing that when I was talking about my map you were looking at a different map than what I was talking about. The reasons for your denial part of the reasons for denial were that you did not have enough information. The Planning & Zoning Commission had the same concern about this property. Even though we are only asking for annexation and rezone and I submitted a conceptual plan a very conceptual plan they made the decision in that process that I needed additional information so I supplied that additional information and subsequently got their unanimous approval recommendation to you that we go ahead and annex and rezone this as per my request based on this plan. I just assumed that you had this plan but you didn't. The plan here shows all the building locations the uses, the landscaping, the proposed parking, and everything else about the project that I am proposing. There has been a lot of confusion, part of the statement in the findings that Mr. Preston agreed that he can postpone this and come back later or something along that line. The only, in my recollection of the record, I did say that I would hold back from my neighbors in directing roads to their property because they came out in mass and said that didn't want to have anything to do with any kind of a commercial development. Well that was mistake so I clearly said I am going to revise it, pull the roads back so that I do not interfere with them. I thought I was doing them a favor that is why I did it, I was supplying them access and utilities but that is not what they wanted so this plan here clearly shows that I have completely buffered my project from them. Now in relation to the Comprehensive Plan this entire layout is in conformance in my opinion with your comprehensive plan. C-G is very definitely one of the uses that is designated for this property. I was going to have Monty McClure, he hasn't' spoken here so I specifically requested that he come to let you know his feelings about this. He was going to but he had another meeting that he had to go to so he wrote a letter. If I might I would like to read his letter, it is very short and give it to you for the record. It is to the City Council, Kingsford: You can go ahead and read it so long as it is signed by him and then it will be acceptable for the record. Preston: Okay, Gentlemen, I am sorry that I cannot testify in person but I have a previous commitment tonight. I am writing this letter in support of Mr. Preston's request of zone change on my property from RT to C-G zone. When the Comprehensive Plan was written I discussed the proposal the proposed use mead use with your Planner at the time Wayne Forrey. He told me that mixed use meant high density residential, commercial or a combination of the two. I agreed with him, those uses were consistent with my belief of the highest and best use of this property. The plan as submitted is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as approved by the City of Meridian. I have owned the property for over 20 years and it was purchased for speculation to be sold when the time was right. The time is right, however, it cannot be sold as anything except a pasture without zoning that would allow it to be developed to its highest and best-use. In talking with Mr. Preston, n Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Doskeland, they are serious about proceeding with the project that will put the property to beneficial use. Thank you for your time and again I am sorry that I couldn't be here in person to talk with you. Sincerely Monty McClure. I just wanted that of record because there have been some statements made and it is even still in the record that I didn't' even have an option with Mr. McClure, but I do and he is totally in favor of what we are proposing here. Another clarification I believe the Council was confused on and it must have been something that I said but this project that I show on this plan is to be a phased project. Most projects are phased I put on here what I in my opinion phase one would be something that could be developed right now. That was the professional office complex which is in the middle of the project. One of the reasons that I put this professional office complex here is to be a better neighbor and do a better job of buffering to the neighbors there is no quieter use, parks wouldn't even be, than a professional office complex because they have office type hours. They are gone on weekends so it is a very compatible use to residential neighbors. Plus then I can buffer it and put up a solid wall between them. I have committed at the past hearing that I would extend that masonry wall to Mr. Brown's property it is not shown on the map but I want it to be of record saying that 1 will do that because he wanted it. He, Mr. Brown is in favor I believe of this project if I can give him some access back there. He wanes access, I will commit to give him access on his property back there. But anyway, phase one is the commercial or the professional office complex. The important part of this layout is this major collector street. This will be a sixty foot right of way, 41 foot back to back curb, gutter, sidewalk,. landscaped both sides all the way through the center of this property in a north-south direction. This will be or could be a very important additional access to the existing commercial development that Mr. Nahas and Mr. Hon have out there that is filling up very rapidly. This will be a back entrance and it will allow traffic from Locust Grove if it goes over the over pass when it goes over the freeway I mean. (End of Tape) clearly indicates that I have in excess of your requirements for landscape. I wanted to do that. I have bicycle paths all the way around it, we concur totally with bringing the sewer and water to the property and we will, our first step of development will be to construct to prepare a plat showing that these individual parcels could be sold off, someone could buy this whole complex or individual lots, we will have a plat that allows them to do that as many developers in Meridian have already done, it is a standard procedure. We will develop the road and then starting marketing this project. As I told you at the last hearing we have done a lot of marketing but we can't get to first base to anyone without having the zoning. They all tell us get your zoning and come back and talk to us. We have a lot of interest in this property. One of the things that I want to add. to this or two things actually, one is that I erroneously indicated that I thought the property along Franklin Road would be the very last and I show it five and six phase, the last phases. But the last to develop and the last to sell, I have a real estate marketer here to testify that is probably not true. He gets calls all the time for property along Franklin so it might go a lot quicker than I expected. So anyway the office complex, the flex space, which is office warehouse, the product supply area, those were Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 16 first, but this is a possibility too. We intend, if you annex and approve and rezone this property to immediately start developing this in 1996 as far as putting water, sewer, fire protection, major landscaping along the streets and so forth and marketing the pads. That is our plan, I am going to have Hoyt Michner testify as to what the interest might be along Franklin and Royland Doskeland who is a partner of mine in this venture to give just a very brief background of his involvement. Rather than stand here I do believe that this Council probably doesn't know me very well and needs to know me better. Rather than stand here blowing my horn as to how great a developer I am which you wouldn't believe anyway, I would advise you or request that you go out and see what I just got through doing. It tells the whole story, if you don't' like than I am not a good developer. If you think it is the nicest project in town, one of the nicest and maybe I am a good developer it is Kentucky Ridge Estates out off Victory Road between Kuna Meridian and Linder. It is about 99% done, it tells the story.. I just invested a million dollars out there, it is selling very well now. That is really who I am and that is my project and I would expect to do an equally as good job on this project. I am associating myself with people that know commercial very well. With that I would be very happy to answer any questions and then tum it over. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Preston? Thank you Royland Doskeland, 10235 West Hensdale, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Doskeland: As Mike mentioned I have associated with him and this project and my background is I have been involved in real estate projects for many years. Investing, financing, developing, probably an excess of $100 million. I am excited about this property because 1 think Franklin is going to be a real key road and the people I have talked to we have quite a bit of interest but at the same time we also know they tell me well we don't know what they are going to do in Meridian. So, come and talk to us when they tell you what you are going to do with the property. So we are anxious to proceed with it. Commercial along Franklin I think make sense to everybody. I guess that is all. Kingsford: Any questions? Thank you Hoyt Mitchner, 7009 Bel Haven, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mitchner: I guess what I wanted to present a little bit is just a short letter of opinion that I wrote up on the property and I have copies (inaudible). Basically Mitchner Investments has been in business for 20 years, I worked for my father Roger Mitchner, dealt with all kinds of clients, retail, office, industrial you name it we have located just about everybody one place or another one time or another in Boise. Meridian is really noticing a tremendous surge as you know, I don't have to tell you that. Everybody is looking over here, everybody is looking for land and existing buildings. They want it right now, if they can't Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 17 n find it right now that usually means buying land. There are not that many possibilities or that much for sale. So we have to I guess develop and establish subdivisions so these people can look and build their buildings over here and establish some new business and growth to keep up. We get calls not only on Meridian but Franklin, Fairview. I think Franklin has probably handled more traffic this past couple years than I don't anybody really expected. The Highway Department is going to need to expand it and widen it, the traffic with the Eagle exit has really generated a great deal of flow coming in from Boise as people take the Eagle exit and head into Meridian to different subdivisions. You can pretty much read the letters based on the opinion. We get calls weekly people looking, I want warehouse space right now what do you have in Meridian. You can show them about 1 or 2 projects and they have to decide whether they want that or they go build a new one. Then we go show them land for sale there are a few choices. Definitely the subdivisions are selling very fast, the Nahas project is selling very fact, the Yanke project on Locust Grove it is over half sold. So you can really see a tremendous need I guess for other possibilities for other tenants. That is about all I have to say, any questions? Kingsford: Any questions? Anyone else from the public? Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: Gentlemen, this annexation has been denied and is now before on an appeal. An appeal means that there is a significant new information which can overturn your decision. A part of reconsideration is that Norm Brown as an affected party spoke in favor of the development. If so consider that Norm Brown is a former business partner with the developer and also be aware that Mr. Brown has is property for sale and is moving. The other part of reconsideration is the plat. Over the past 18 months 8 affected parties who oppose the development have written about 50 pages of testimony single spaced. The Council and the Commisison have written 4 times that. The concerns all reduce to four areas of serious concern. Serious because they regard legal liabilities. Number one, the Federally regulated corner, wetland and flood plain at Locust Grove and Franklin. This includes Council's previous prohibition of C-N retail on that corner, that is the gas station. Berming and transition to the adjoining R1 single family residence, this means landscaping facing outward. Irrigation water, in previous applications this developer has constantly platted buildings over ditches and easements. Number four the drinking water, this development sits immediately atop our water table and must affect our water. Now gentlemen look at the new information, the discovery on this plat. The gas station which you already denied is still in the middle of the Federally regulated corner. Number 2 transition, once again is just a fence and the landscaping is still facing inward. Number 3, the irrigation district's ditches and easements once again are platted. About the only new discoveries a restaurant with a (inaudible) pumice factory and the cemetery. There are no new discovery here, there is no reason to over turn your previous rejection. For al Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 18 the cities expense your time and ours not a single finding of fact issued to this developer over the last 18 months has been addressed in this application. Apparently he has not teamed that findings of fact are findings of fact. They are not suggestions. This is called a slow teaming curve. With slow learners you start all over and maybe the next time they will try to learn. If you reject this of course he (inaudible) he always is. But it will cost him another $900 in change to start over. Perhaps when he pays enough application fees his cognition will improve. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell:. Gentlemen, it is good to see you again. 1 have talked with Commissioner Rountree with Planning and Zoning and my wife has talked with Councilman Corrie and I want to make sure we understand this. The action before you is just an annexation, basically it is just the go ahead for further planning and the commercial property taxes will be immediately assessed when the gavel falls and these will be assessed to the property owner. I assume this is correct. The next step and this is important will be for him to file a preliminary plat. And at this point we can renew our battle or (inaudible) the project over the basis of water. Well, I am sorry I am mis-reading, we have to have a preliminary plat next. Under best circumstances this could take a year if things get ugly which this property does have a lot of problems with it, it could be two maybe so. If this is approved then the landscaping goes in first in its entirety and this requires bringing in the water half a mile at that time in order to water the plants, I assume this is correct. If this is approved then the spine road will follow, and if this is approved then every unit will then be subject to a conditional use and individually go through the review process again. Now, if this is correct, how do we come to the prospect of we are going to start developing this next summer. Now, about this road, I am confused on this because in the transcript of this last meeting Mr. Morrow is expressing some concern that it could be seven years before we see this development done. And actually I think it could be seven years before you see it begin. Because we are talking roads everything seems to be hinge on these roads and they have just said it here that ACHD is going to have to fix those roads. Franklin Road is not an urban arterial it is a Rural collector, they put out these long range maps which of course show it five lanes. But they have not intended use in the next five years to fund that or make any developments. In fact I was amazed to find out they don't' have any plans for it in the next ten years. With regard to Locust Grove going over the freeway, they have no plans for that at all. They were going to re-pave South Locust Grove within the next five years but the don't have the money for that now so it has been deferred. As far as that overpass that everybody is waiting for ACHD cannot build that. That belongs to the State Transportation Department, it is over an interstate. I checked with the Transportation Department District Three and they have not plans within the next 20 years to build an Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 19 overpass there. Now, mind you things can always change they always come up with that caveat. But todays funding, you just built a power mall, they are going to start building the power mall and that shifted ACHD's funding. So logically we don't see anything happening on these roads for at least five years and that is local pressure. We want it fixed too it is a goat trail. But, there is not going to be the traffic if the issue here is traffic, don't wait for those roads to come. In fact I was told by the planner at the Transportation Department don't wait for it in my lifetime. If you wish to verify this about the overpass and the Transportation Department please contact Jeff Miles, I spoke with the transcriptionist, Miles at District Three Transportation Department. If you wish to verify with the ACRD, I will site Larry Zurek at ACRD. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Plant: I would propose that this entire zoning be rejected on the grounds that it is entirely too vague. It is the same battle that we have been putting up with Mr. Preston the previous times he has appeared before you. It is vague, the plan does not fit the area. If there is such a crying need for the commercial development he needs to look around back and forth east and west. From his viewpoint there is an abundance of commercial property ready to go. The roads are not and there is not dealing with the vagaries that we are dealing with here tonight. This looks like another great smoke screen and I would recommend that you reject it. Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Elwood Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rennison: I have been to several of the meetings here, most of them regarding this particular property. Tonight has been rather enlightening. I was rather under the impression that Mr. Preston had an ownership in the property. If I were the owner of the property I would certainly be down here representing my interests. The fact that the owner has never been here to any of the meetings and Mr. Preston has been representing him shows a lack of interest really wanting to sell the property and develop it. I think the whole thing from appearances and from what I have been listening to has been a pressure by Mr. Preston to have this property developed. Of course it is all for people to make money. It takes a lot of work to develop a piece of property that we all know. I came down to City Hall and I bought a zoning map. I took it and I drove around a good part of the town here and I did this about a year ago. I looked at the property that has been zoned for commercial development and I saw how much it was developed and how much it was still sitting basically idle. Gentlemen, there is a lot of land sitting around Meridian that is ~ n Meridian City Council November 21, 1995 Page 20 already zoned. I went around two weeks ago and I looked and I see that as we all have things are really starting to pop at the seams. It is getting exciting and it is getting stressful too for people. The excitement can be pretty overwhelming, I have a chance to make a development here now and I want to get it going. There is something to put a driving force into an individual or a firm to do a development. People are starting to do it all over town. I think that Meridian still has a great deal of zoned property available to be developed. Based on what I have seen and I would invite you to go out and look around and look also and I am sure you have this is your community and you are. here, you have vested interest in it and everything. That you please take a look at what is available and what has been sitting around, its locations and how the development is going. After you have done that I would like you to consider rejecting the rezoning at this time on this piece of property because of alt the various disciplines of involvement from all different sources. You have got the Five Mile Creek, you have the cemetery adjacent to it. You have the property owners adjacent to it, irrigation. You have so many different things involved in it I think it takes a lot of consideration. To do justice to it I think you need to reject this request for rezoning and please review it again and maybe you will have a little bit better chance to make a very just recommendation. That is all I have to say, thank you for listening to me. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none 1 will close the public hearing. What is your thought with regard to findings? (Inaudible) certainly the map that I had was different as I look at the testimony and the process. Do we need to have new findings? Crookston: I believe that we do, not only because of the map but because we are actually dealing with in essence a new matter as an appeal. It still is a request for annexation and zoning which the first one was also. I think that there are maybe a need for the Council to think about it some so I would request that the findings be asked to be developed and bring it up at the next meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare a new set of findings and facts for the request of annexation and zoning of 30 acres to C-G by Michael Preston. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law for the 30 acres to C-G by Michael Preston, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY '^ d'\ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIA RONALD R. TOLSMA I GARY D. SM THS P.E. City Eng Weer N OBERT D. CORR E BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. WALT W. MORROW JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief " " MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 Planner a Zoning Administrator W.L. BILL GORDON, Police Chiet , JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Phone (208) 888433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor MEMORANDUM: April 10, 1995 TO: Mayor and City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Eng_ ineer Shari Stiles, P&Z Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Annexation and Zoning of C-G by D. Michael Preston We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, for your information and consideration as conditions of the Applicant during the hearing process: 1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be Bled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-104A. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS - P BLI WORK DEPARTMENT The legal description submitted with this application does not appear to meet the requirements of Resolution 158. Please submit a corrected legal description to the City Clerk. 2. The described parcel is contiguous to existing City limit boundaries established by Ordinance No. 312. 3. Sewer service will need to be connected to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line which is currently under construction. Domestic water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road. City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and through a development. Therefore, a 12-inch diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road from its point of connection to existing water east n Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council April 10, 1995 Page 2 to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's frontage on Locust Grove Road. SITE SPECIFIC OMMENTS - PLANNIN DEP RTMENT 1. This area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process. Plans will be required to be submitted in conformance with the requirements of 11-9-607 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2. Pathways forpedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout this development. 3. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 4. A minimum of ten percent (10 %) of the site must be landscaped in accordance with Planned Development requirements. 5. A minimum landscape setback of 35' beyond required rights-of--way along Franklin Road shall be provided. 6. A minimum landscape setback of 20' beyond required right-of--way for Locust Grove Road (45' from centerline) shall be provided. 7. Ada County Highway District has requested a total of 30 feet from centerline on Locust Grove Road; however, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates Locust Grove Road as a minor arterial. As a condition of approval, the City of Meridian will require a minimum of 45 feet from centerline to be set aside for road right-of--way, as this is the policy in Meridian for all section line roads. 8. A minimum 20' landscaped setback will required adjacent to residential properties. 9. Various ditches surround this property. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will have to approve, in writing, any rerouting or tiling of these lines. Also, Dan Caldwell, Ditchrider, and Robert R. Smith, Water User Liaison, must be contacted for requirements of downstream water users. Adjacent residential properties currently utilize siphon irrigation via an existing open ditch. 10. A portion of the site appears to be in the 100-year floodplain as determined for Ada County by FEMA's FIRM dated December 17, 1991. This floodplain/floodway issue Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council April 10, 1995 Page 3 needs to be addressed by the Applicant. Uses permitted in the floodplain district are generally associated with open space, recreational and agricultural land uses and shall not hinder the movement of the flood waters. It would appear construction is prohibited in the northeast portion of the subject property. No development will be allowed in this area until satisfactory details, including floodplain and engineering studies, have been completed and submitted to the City. Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 3 fence is falling down. Property buyers within the subdivision claim the Developer has "sold" them the 11' ± to add to their lot. Item 11 - Whitestone Estates Subdivision Annexation and Zoning -Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Although I did receive a telephone call from Mirazin Shakoori, the owner of 120 acres to the west, I have not received a signed waiver from him. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 12 - Whitestone Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat -Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Details of pathway along Ten Mile Creek have not been received. Variances would be required to accept the preliminary plat in its present configuration. Item 13 - Franklin Grove Commercial Center -Initial findings asked for a tabling of the annexation request until further information was provided. This information was provided to the Commissioners on an individual basis. If approved, I would recommend that very specific requirements be included in the annexation ordinance. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 14 - Highlands Ranch Subdivision Annexation & Zoning - FF/CL prepared by the P&Z Commission would require extensive changes in both the "preliminary plat" and "conditional use permit" applications submitted. P&Z is not prepared to act on the plat or CUP until Council has acted on the annexation. Information submitted does not meet the requirements for a preliminary plat or a conditional use permit, and is very conceptual in nature. L-O request would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Item 15 - Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit -Lot 2, Block 1 -During the public hearing process, Applicant's representative stated that uses along Locust Grove Road would be "low impact"; two drive-thrus that will operate until midnight every night are not at all low impact.. Applicant should have considered switching uses for Lots 2 and 5. I concur with P&Z's recommendation that the conditional use permit be denied. Item 16 - Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit -Lot 5, Block 1 -Comments have been addressed and a revised site plan has not been submitted. Item 17 - Harry's Bar & Grill -YES!! I want to go to lunch there tomorrow and sit outside. Council may want to consider limiting seating to daylight hours only instead of a 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. limit. C~OG~~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SHERINAH_INDUSTRIES, INC. D. MICHAEL PRESTON ANNEXATION AND REZONE APPLICATION SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael Preston, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian and the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the matter, made and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but tabled the matter to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council, and the Applicant submitting additional information at the June 22, 1995, meeting, and the City Council having held a public hearing a public hearing on the annexation and zoning on August 15, 1995, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: I• FINDINGS OF FACT A. That notice of a public hearing on the Annexation FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1 T ~~ Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 15, 1995,-the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 15, 1995, _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. B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the titled owners are Montee and Beverly McClure and IVADCO, Inc.; that no consent by the owners of record has been given to the City for the rezone of the property; that consents for annexation and zoning shall be filed by the titled owners prior to proceedings before the Meridian City Council; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented. D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density residential development to the east and south of the land. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2 r r~ E. 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. F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land to be annexed is one home and pasture land for cattle and horses. G. That D. Michael Preston testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission that as he was meeting with various people it came to his attention that a residential zone for this area was evidently not in the interest of the City of Meridian. He stated he decided that he would look at this property from a commercial basis, so the concept that he submitted was purely a concept. This was not something that he was ready to submit to the Commission; this request was purely for annexation and rezoning. He stated that he had high intensity service retail on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove and that someday that would be appropriate there; that he also had retail along the westerly side of this office complex. Toward the rear of the property, as we get closer to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3 State Training facility, he would turn that into a supply type commercial like a lumber yard or something like that, pipe supply or whatever. If the neighbors are not interested, he could re- arrange the streets very quickly and easily and leave them in peace, which he said he would definitely do if that is their desire. He stated that he was really trying hard to get along with them this time and do something that was more agreeable to them. He stated that the access road that he had there would be a very convenient rear access from the Meridian interchange to the Nahas- Hon commercial development. He thought that this was something that would be good for the City and he had every intent of developing it somewhat in that fashion with additional input. He just wanted to emphasize that the layout was concept only. He stated that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so. He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was agreeable to all of them. He also statc~c9 that he 1,~.a Qoe., +.~,,, comments from ACRD and had no problems with them. That at the June 22, 1995, meeting Mr. Preston stated many things but in summary he testified that the he had submitted a revised concept plan which gives the Commission the idea of the type of landscaping, parking, fire protection facilities, access, ingress/egress to each of the facilities; what the office complex FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4 ~o might look like, which could change because he does not have any tenants at this time; that there is a professional office complex next to the neighborhood homes, which is a quiet use; that he has added a six foot high masonry wall all the way around the project and with that he is trying to totally sound proof the area; also he will have a twenty foot landscape strip which is called for by City Ordinance; that with the 35 foot landscape strip they will not disturb any of the wet lands and they will not impact that in anyway and their landscaping will make it prettier than it is today; that they will not be digging in the creek and they will not impact Five Mile Creek in any way. He also testified that the spine road, with water and sewer facilities, is planned to be in by next spring; that in response to a question from Commissioner Hepper regarding what can be performed on the land, he testified that they had to come back for conditional uses from the Commission to anything and that the Commission has total control over control through those conditional uses. At the City Council public hearing he testified additionally that he does not have specific tenants, that he is planning intense retail on Franklin Road and Locust Grove roads but it is not going to happen quickly, that Franklin will have to be improved to a five lane road and a traffic light installed at Franklin and Locust Grove Road before the retail is implemented; that he has uses that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5 ~ ^ can be implemented now but they are in the back (south) of the development. He stated that the neighbors concern over buffering was a concern for him; that he is proposing a professional office complex, a 20 foot buffer area, and a six foot masonry wall to buffer the neighbors; that there will also be building between the neighbors and the parking areas; he also stated that the masonry wall would be between him and Mr. Brown; that his first phase would be the professional office space; that it is going to be a very nice development, with sidewalks everywhere. Regarding Five Mile Creek, he testified that it barely touched the property in the northwest corner; that when ACHD widens Franklin Road they will be concerned with the Creek and have to handle the wetlands and flood plain issues; he acknowledges that those are issues relating to his land but that since they are asking only for annexation and zoning, those issues could be addressed later. That since this would be annexed as a planned commercial development, all construction details, sewer, water, and floodplain, would come back at future public hearings and be resolved; that the plan is conceptual; that irrigation canals would be tiled; that there will be pressurized irrigation. H. That there was testimony at the hearing on April 9, 1995, objecting to the Application which was principally as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6 ~ ~ 1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right now. The way that the City is growing with the commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be coming in at a regular rate, I don't think right now would be an appropriate time with the condition that Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near future dates so I think it would really be a detriment to our properties . I hope you will not change your zoning on this, thank you. 2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected parties that already submitted a letter in writing saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing has come out that I would like to add that we did not know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he does represent the developer, but he had a letter of intent on this at one time and that expired last May. 3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be totally denied. This type of development is not warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible with the residences in that area. We are, although not bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved for residential areas and commercial in our back yard would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our property. I. That at the City Council Public hearing there was also comment from the public which was basically as follows: 1. Ann Witherill testified due process had been violated; that she had not seen the present plat before to nights meeting; that this plat is the same as was presented before; that this is not the correct plat; that the plat was given to confuse and skew public comment. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7 r~ 2. Jim Witherill testified the effected parties had signed and submitted a letter that the City had; that the application is frivolous and should be denied; since there is no concept plan and that the tenants are not known this is not a legitimate application; that his previous plans have been disapproved which is good reason to deny this plan; that there is insufficient water and a shallow water table which is not being recharged and could. be contaminated; that regardless of the landscaping this is still going to look like a commercial development stuck in the middle of on square mile of R1 housing; that the masonry wall will make it look like a fort; he suggested a berm all the way around six. feet high with a three foot fence on top; that all commercial development should be planned, single storey; that there should be no high density retail and no restaurants; that there biggest concern was they do not think this developer has much money and if they sue him they do not want to hit empty pockets. 3. That Albert Rennison testified that egress and exit on the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin has to be address and resolved; that putting more commercial across the street from the commercial that is on the north side of Franklin does not make sense; the area is not ready for commercial development; that the Corp of Engineers has jurisdiction over the entire water shed that flows into Five Mile Creek; that if the City approves of this commercial development the developer should be required to place a bond in the event the City has liability problems because of the development at the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin; that he recommends that the zoning and annexation be denied. 5. Norm Brown testified that he asked Mr. Preston if he would continue the concrete fence to protect his land, then that is fine; if we lose the irrigation we would lose our well water. 6. Marshall Smith testified he was opposed to commercial on the south side of Locust Grove; that the wetlands have been there since before any of us and we should respect what was put there by nature; that he was opposed the Application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8 n /'`, 7. Ted Hanson testified that ACRD had stated that they want to bring Locust Grove Road straight to Franklin and then to the freeway and that would not be for 8 to 12 years. 8. Rod Cullip testified that before anything is done at this location, Franklin Road needs to be improved. J. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the petition sets forth objections to.the Application and requests that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows: 1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development includes land owned by those objecting and they do not desire their land to be so developed. 2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Applicant's previous application prohibit this Application for development. 3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the Application, that the Application was frivolous. 5. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also litigious. 6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wet land area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation. K. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from Wayne Forrey who testified as follows: That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business relationship with another property owner who owned land that is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9 ~ ~"~ property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between a commercial property and a residential property. The City does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan. It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is probably something the developer or the applicant here would be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that other property owners out there may have some reservations about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning. L. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed from their domestic service but that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model and domestic water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12-inch diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road from its point of connection to existing water east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's frontage; that sewer service would be via connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line; that a new FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10 legal description needs to be submitted pursuant to Meridian City Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of-Way. M. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted comments; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process; pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout the development; plans will be required to be submitted in conformance with the requirements of Section 11-9-607; Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City; a minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped; a minimum setback of 35' beyond the required rights- of-way along Franklin Road shall be provided; a minimum landscape setback of 20' beyond the required rights-of-way along Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum of 20' landscaped setback will be required adjacent to residential development; that Nampa & Meridian will have to be contacted for approval of any rerouting of irrigation and other water lines; that a portion of the site appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and that will have to be addressed by the Applicant. N. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the former Planning Director had commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11 ~ /'~ help acquire future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an approved development agreement. O. That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are incorporated as if set forth in full. P. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. Q. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact. R. 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 and other uses. S. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines and facilities. T. That it is specifically found that the Applicant only presented a concept and did not present a subdivision plat or any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12 other specific or concrete plan of development. U. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: 1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement. Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support shopping facilities which are effectively integrated into new or existing residential areas, and plan for new shopping centers as growth and development warrant. 1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land use and design within the development, and with contiguous developments; and encourage innovations in building techniques, so that the growing demands of the community are met, while at the same time providing for the efficient use of such lands. 2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13 n 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and proposals for future development. 5.8 Development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more differing uses are proposed. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously- developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area, shall be harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. 5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not in compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be required. 5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential. All development proposals in this area will FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14 be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. 3. Franklin Road (East and West entrances) are listed as Minor Arterials and as Entryway Corridors. 4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73 1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian. 2. Policies, a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development and encourage clustered, landscaped business development on entrance corridors. b. 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74 a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. V. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15 n Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development." W. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided. X. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states as follows: "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." Y. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land-Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area. Z. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16 n number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." AA. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district. AB. That Section 11-2-416 E 2. c. provides that this Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it does not have sufficient information to make a decision. AC. That proper notice was given as required by law and all FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17 r~ ^ procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. 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. B. 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. C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18 ..'~ ~ Meridian have been complied with. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. 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. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. H. 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). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19 r~ /'~ meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances. K. The Applicant stated and represented his intention as to the type of development and stated some possible proposed uses of the property, but he did not present a plat or concrete plan as to how the property would be developed nor did he present any specific uses that would be constructed there or where on the property that they would be constructed; it could be determined if possible uses would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but without knowing exactly what the use, or uses, will be, it is risky and hazardous to make a suggestion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without knowing the exact use or uses that will be constructed. Additionally, the City has much more control in the annexation process than it does at any other time in the development process. Without knowing more exactly the uses, it is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20 r'O in the best interests of the City to forego annexation until more information is known on the specifics of the development. It is further stated that the property at Fairview and Locust Grove Road was, and is being, developed on property that has the same designation in the Comprehensive Plan as this land, which is Mixed/Planned Use Development; the developer of the Fairview and Locust Grove Road property requested annexation, zoning and a conditional use, all at the same time, but without a plat, which the developer did not request approval of until January of 1995; he did, however, know that he was going to have a storage unit business and had plans for a retail shopping center; he stated at the City Council public hearing on the annexation that the proposed use was for a commercial shopping center and rental storage facility and had submitted plans as to where they would be located, even though he did not present a plat; that it is therefore stated that the City has approved annexations without a plat, but it had more definite and concrete statements as to uses. The City denied an application for annexation for JLG BUILDERS where the City determined that the plat presented did not meet the goals of the City of Meridian. Plats are a very decisive document FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21 i"ti n that gives the City much needed information. Applicant did state at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so; that it is concluded that it would be in best interests of the City to have this Application pulled back until and the property not annexed and zoned until more specifics on the development are known by the City and the Applicant. L. That, as concluded above, annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function and it is in the sole discretion of the City to annex or not. The majority of the City Council, also states, that the development concept was not totally adverse to them, but what was adverse was the lack of specifics as to the development. M. That it i3 concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22 ~ ~ 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 COMMIS~IQIG`ER PEPPER VOTED COMMI ONER ROUNTREE CO ISSI ER SHEARER MMISSIO ER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, above stated that the annexation Application is denied MOTION: ~~ / • APPROVED. DISAPPROVED. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23 ~ ~ HUB OFTREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS A GOI~d PIaCI: t0 L1VC RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer MERIDIAN CITY OF MAXYERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer SHARI STILES BRUCE D. STUART, Water works Suet. 33 EAST IDAHO planner 8 Zoning Administrator JOHN T. SNAWCROFT, waste water supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 JIM JOHNSON W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman -Planning 8 Zoning WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: /~pril 4 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zonina of Franklin trove Commercial Center BY: Michael Preston LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Southwest comer of Franklin Road and ocust ove Road JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P/Z JIM SHEARER, P/Z CHARLES ROUNTREE, P/Z TIM HEPPER, P/Z GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF R LAMATION(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES ~ ., ~ '~ , 2 YOUR CONCISE ~~ RE TIED ~~,~ 2 2 1995 CITY OF MERID1AId ~ n HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS A GOOd PIaCe CO L1Ve RONALD R. TOLSMA WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN MAX YERRINGTON WALT W. MORROW GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer SHARI STILES BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO Planner 8 Zoning Administrator JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, waste water supt. f IDAHO 83642 MERIDIAN JIM JOHNSON KENNY W. BOWERS. Fire Chie W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief , phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887813 Chairman ~ Planning d Zoning WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-221 I GRANT' P. KINGSFORD Mayor TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by:~-pril 4 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3!20!95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of Franklin Grove Commercial Center BY: Mi hael Preston LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Southwest comer of Franklin Road and L Gust o o d JIM JOHNSON, P/Z MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, P2 CHARLES ROUNTREE, PIZ TIM HEPPER, P2 GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C _606 CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C _MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) fNTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM ~ FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES 3 a ~ ~l,'~ OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: ¢ ZO nl' -~. ~- _~ ~, r~ 5 :.A ~) ~f 1: •. .. -, C G I'iC JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary Apri16, 1995 TO: MR. D. MICHAEL PRESTON, PRES-SHEKiNAH INDUSTRIES, INC. 402 BITTEROOT DRIVE BOISE, ID 83709 FROM: Karen Gallaghe , Development Se ision SUBJECT: MRZ-1-95 Your applications for the above referenced project was acted on by the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District on APRIL 5, 1995. The attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street improvements which are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 345-7680. KG cc: Development Services Chron John Edney CITY OF MERIDIAN n ~~~~~;~ APR 1 0 1995 (:Il it vi i~~r,iUlA' ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 ~R~o.e`I ~F4N L~ $h : ~qw ~ ~ ~ Q ~~~ ~=o., ~1~~=~ ~ e W~ ~ ~;~mL~ 3ibE4c~ o°Cu~ ~~i~Qb:° no O!~n a$ ¢ o of " L=m4 C~ =~Y i~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ a W Sb u `N v IW ~ 2 ~ ~ ~~'~~ I !i0 ~ Iw 'W ~' © ~~M 4 ! ~ ;J CY QI ~ W a ,n ~ ; ~'C i ,~ ~:~ i O~' i000 W ~ ,~- aQ : ~ Z i~ Q 2 ~; 2 I4'!d 2 u W I ~ ~~ ~, ~ l Q Q, ¢ ~ u~~ ~' I i~ ~ i I~ ~ , ~ ,, , ~ ~ I, i ~ -_ _ , , , i I -- -- ---- ---~ I I I I I I ~ ' i ~ 3s 6 ~~ wp~ mss. Yd ~~ d V Ys o I I I i i i L---- ------•-- -----~ N Site Specific Requirements: Construct curb, gutter, 5-foot sidewalk and match paving on Locust Road abutting parcel. Improvements shall be constructed to a 41-foot back-to-back street section. 2. Provide a deposit to the Public Rights-of--Way Trust Fund at the District for the required street improvements of a 5-foot wide sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting parcel. 3. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of--way from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 4. Dedicate a 15' x 15' triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of--way at the corner of Franklin Road and Locust Road abutting parcel to keep the street improvements in the public right-of- way. 5. Access points shall be in conformance with the Districts policies. Standard Requirements: 1. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACRD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of--way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat (when applicable). 2. Aright-of--way permit must be obtained from ACHD for any street or utility construction within the public right-of--way. Utility cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement damage. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with application file number) for details. 3. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar daXs of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity. MRZ-1-95 Page 3 ..~ CENTRAL •• DISTRICT i 1'HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rezone # y Conditional Use # Preliminary /Final /Short ~kL/./ (~~~~ ~iyiy~72Cf ^ Garden city ~, Meridian ^ Kuna ^ Acz G~N~r~ ^ I. We have Objections to this Proposal. ^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal. ^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal. ^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment. ^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of: ^ high seasonal ground water ^ solid lava from original grade ^ 6. We can Approve this Proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located above solid lava layers: ^ 2 feet ^ 4 feet ~-7. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for: Q'sentral sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well ^ interim sewage ,central water ^ individual sewage ^ individual water 8. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: ,central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water ^ sewage dry lines ,~Lentral water ~9. Street Runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. ^ 10. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. ^ I I . If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State Sewage Regulations. ^ 12. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: ^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center ^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store 13. /~ u. J~v,~S/ REVIEW SHEET Environmental Health Division Return to: I`~ rs' ~ ~' ... ^ Boise " ~ Ea le /~ ~G~'yi`1 E'~'/J.'rllp''if Date: ~1 0~.3 / B"T~f~"D Reviewed By: car ~ ~•-~aT~ CDHD ID/91 rcb, rev. I I/93 jll ~ ~ CENTRAL ~• DISTRICT ptt'HEALTH bEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 701 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID. 83704-0825 • (208) 315.5211 • FAX: 321-8500 To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our environment. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the first one half inch of stormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with -the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are: 1) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of Ecology, February 19892 2) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT 3) CALIFORNIA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee, Larry Walker Assoc. , Uribe and Assoc . , Resources Planning Assoc. , for the Stormwater Quality Task Force 4) URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Volume 3, Best Management Practices Stormwater Quality Urban Drainage and Flood .Control District, Denver, Colorado Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, and Ada Counties Ado / Bone Courtly OMke 107 N. Mrstrong p. Bone, ID. 83104-0825 Enviro. Health: 321-1499 Fomdy Plaruung: 327-7400 Immun¢otioru: 327-7450 Nutrition: 327.1460 WIC: 327.7488 WIC Boise • Meridian Elmore County Ofhc® Elmore County OIBce 1606 Robert St. 520 E. 8th Sheet N, of EnvironmeNal tledth Bone, ID. 83705 Mountain Home. ID. 190 S. 4th Street E Ph. 334-3355 83641 Ph. 581.4401 Mountain Home, ID. 324 Meridion Rd. 83647 Ph. 581.9225 Meridian, ID. 83642 Ph 888.6525 . . Valley County 018ce P.O. Box 1448 McCord, ID. 83638 Ph. 634-7194 ,~ ~" ~ /'~ ~ OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888.4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES ~ }mss y Planner 8 Zoning Administrator f`,.~{I~(~I~C1II~® JIM JOHNSON g U LLB ~j U ,v Chairman ~ Planning 8 Zoning ~ ~ MAR 199 NAMRA tI< MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendation to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: April 4. 1995 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 3/20/95 HEARING DATE: 4/11/95 REQUEST: Annexation and Zoning of Franklin Grove Commercial Center BY: _ Michael Preston LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: Southwest comer of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road JIM JOHNSON, PR MOE ALIDJANI, P2 JIM SHEARER, PR CHARLES ROUNTREE, P2 TIM HEPPER, PR GRANT KINGSFORD, MAYOR RONALD TOLSMA, C/C BOB CORRIE, C/C WALT MORROW, C/C MAX YERRINGTON, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT -SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT -POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER -CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM 8~ FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM 8t FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) CITY FILES OTHER: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the annexation and zoning of the Franklin Grove Commercial Center. We will comment on the lateral and drain on this site at the time of development. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ~...,. S_ 7 ~~ '11a~u,~ic~ & ~di~~dia~s ~Ivugattaot ?~ca~cuct 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-888-6201 Phones: Area Code 208 D. Michael Preston, P.E. 420 Bitteroot Boise, ID 83709 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 Boise 343-1884 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Boise 345-2431 RE: Land Use Change Application for Franklin Grove Commerical Center Dear Mr. Preston: Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation District for its review on the above- referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call on Donna Moore at the District's office or John Anderson, the District's Water Superintendent at the District's shop. Sincerely, DAREN R. COON, SECRETARY/TREASURER NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRC/dnm cc: File Water Superintendent Shekinah Industries (Preston) City of Meridian enc. ,,~ ~ -_ , . ,...~ ~~ ~ . ~~~~ APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGFITS • 40,000 30 March 1995 ~ ~ t T;;e rla`y~ur sand ~,tty Cuul IC?1 City of Meridian J!~?_"'r 2~?, 195 RECEIVED AUG - 4 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAN in the matter of FRA?~s~LIN GRO'dE C0i ~(`IERCIAL 0EV'EL0P1`1EN T ,petition for annexation and rezoning as cammercial property. 1~><e are the affected residents immediately adoining the deveioprr~er~t, on the east; hereir~after• referred to as the Affected Parties, to clarify we do not represent any other affected party to this application. ~iur names, signatures, and addresses conclude this testimony. 0n f°?arch 7, 1 ~~5, we met as a group Frith the developer, at his request. This meeting was eaten`~eiy brief, ar,d he?d in the field intended for developmer?t. The deve?raper pr opcr.ed art R-~~ subdivision of 140 duplexes, or a carnmercia? development if we would make a joint appl ication for annexation and zoning. The meeting eras very brief, the Affected Parties declared to oppose either of his proposals. b4'e have had no further contact with the deve?oiler, Please record as Public hearing Testimon`~~, as if read in full before the Council that the Affected Parties, that while not in general opposition to considerate, single story, office development, r,~fi;~it~I~• oppose this development, P?ease record as Public Hearing Testimony, too, that we also oppose, and wi?? continue to oppose, any development on the southern corners of South Locust Grova Road. This is a major, and picturesque, gateway into the City of Meridian, and on this southern side of Franklin is entirely one acre (or larger) homes within the entire square mi?e..An island of commercial or less than R- 1housing could not, in any way, be rr,ade to bler~d in with the neighborhood. !t would, 'therefore, detract from the adjoining properties, the neighborhood, and the City's gateway, i. WE REQUEST THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1.1 TH1S IS A FRIVOLOUS APPLICATION, AND WE BELIEVE THE INTENT IS SIMPLY TO GAIN ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO ENHANCE RESALE. The original intent, as per the first Letter of ;ntent between the developer and landowner, was to build a "trailer park.". This intent was also clear an the first plat for Aspen Grove Estates; although the application termed the development a "manufactured home" development. This application was withdrawn. The second application, as Preston's Aspen Grove, was for a manufactured Name development, per se. This application was unsuccessful. The next intended app?ication was for the duplexes avhimsically termed "townhouses" in the letter of application, March 15, 1 ~a~5. In lieu of "townhouses",however, the developer submitted a CO~CEPTU{a•L application for genera? commercial and retail. In this applioation, the developer im lied the Affected Parties desired this project. Moreover, the developer incorporated the properties of the Affected Parties in total, as retail area in his CONCEPT (attached as exhibit t ?, n ~ The developer ack.nc}wledges, through three rr,eetings, tE~at all of his plats, and oral agreements iso far there have been no written agreements), are °Conceptual." This means hypothetical, Pit this time, commercial property is highly competitive and there are approximately S5O acres of available commercial property in proximity -which has remained unsold for 2O years. The developer acknowledged in public hearing that he was aware Ada County Highway District has no plans to improve Franklin, therefore cornrnercial access to this property, for the next ~0 year ~. And that he will bear the huge expense of extending water aver 3, i SO feet, therefore also repaving Franklin, while there is alreacf4' a surfeit of commercial property on arterials with immediate access to existing water and sewer. f n sum, this is a very high risk commercial property. But in spite of this, the developer has stated to the Planning and Zoning Commission that he has no prospective tenants, no actual tirnetabie, and no actual plat. Ne is still unsure of what he will build here. Given these facts, anti that comr~~ercial is his FOURTH intended use, we can only conclude the developer's only real intent is to gain any type of zoning he can in order to try to sell the property. 1T IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY THAT 1 T tiViLL NOT ANNEX PROPEP,TY ONLY TO ENHANCE RESALEA6iLITY. IF THE DEVELOPER WAS, INDEED, SERiGUS, HE WOULD 'NAVE A SERIOUS PROPOSAL. WHEREAS, HE HAS Y'ET TO E`4EN FORMALIZE BUFFEP,3PJG AND THE SPIhJE ROAD. 1.2 THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT PROCEEDED 1N GOOD FAITH It is extremely significant that application and plat, in~~plied our involvement in, and approval or, the project. Our opposition was stated to the developer a full weekprior to his application. Nevertheless, the inference was made for public record through the circulation of the application and plat as part of the Planning and Zoning Process. This circulation prejudiced the public hearing in that i }. several people did not attend the April 1 1 rneeting of Planning and Zoning, or comment by letter, because they believed the Affected Parties were actually involved in the project, and 2). public comment was lardy restricted to the wrongful inclusion of properties not under the control of this developer. There was no other issue which could have been addressed. 'We believe the use of this inference was intentional, and meant to skew the review process. A revised plat has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission (attached as exhibit 2), through the tabling process. ; lowever, there have been no further public hearings, of course, because the plat is still canceptuai and no less hypothetical that the original submission. Furthermore, during the tabling proce_,s, as reported in the'r'ali?y h~lews, th e de~~eicper a:~sured the Commission that he was working the Affected Partie:~. This is blatantly false; we have had no contact with the deveir~per since tt;e (larch r rneeting. But now this mis-truth has been publicly circulated in the media as fact. We believe misrepresentation has been deliberate and calculated. The ultimate contempt, however, is that far public notice far Hearing before the City Council, the developer has again supplied the original plat, which incorporates the whole of the land of the Affected Parties as being within his development, for circulation and public comment. This perpetuates the myth that the Affected Parties are part of the project and disregards all changes required to be untabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. And it strongly reinforces our belief that the misrepresentation is willful. ~'lE CAN COt~IE TO NO OTHER CONCLUSION BUT THAT THiS APPLICATIONd HAS DELIBERATELY' BEEN f1ADE iN BAD FA!T~-t, !~IERITiiJiA I;".EJECT1t7N. l.3 PART OF THIS PROPOSAL, CONCEPT NOT WITNSTANDlNG, HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISAPPROVED BY COUNCIL. In the application of Preston's Aspen Gro~fe ~~the n^~anufar~tured'nome parks, the developer "conceptua?ly" inwluded commercial de~'elopr~ient, L.1 acres more or less, at the corner of Franklin and Sor~th Locust Grove Road. Zoned C-N, this "conceptual"development was a ~:onvenier7ce stare, gas station, earwash, and office building. Regarding this "conceptual" development, tha Council's Findings of Fact of July 1 ~, 1994, Finding Number 4, specifically denied this use at large, to wit "the property requested to be coned C-N should nc?ta~uf t,7es~;n~~f f~mil~%resi~,~ntia~'n~°c?,~~rtj:~" (emphasiv added). V','orded as a general prohibition against any hign volume development ;n this corner, it specifically prohi.biteu a convenience Store, carwash, gas station as described on the plat (c:oncept notwithstanding}. However, in making #his application, the developer AGAIN is contemptuausiy and "conceptualhy" planning exactly the same use as was pre•~~iousl denied. It is our opinion, and believe we would prevail in civil law, that Finding 4 supra) is president and, at MINi~';UI~, prevents development Gt this Corner. BY PRECICENT OF JUL" 1 rf, 1994 FlNDIhJGS OF FACT, DEVELOPMENT ON TH'S COR"iER SHOULD BE, PRIi~~A FACIA, DENIED, AND, BECAUSE THiS APPLICATION NON-SEVERABLE '~h'ITH THE CORNER, THEREBY THE ENTIRE PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED. 1.4 THE APPLICATION IS IN CONTEMPT OF CITY POLICY. !IitU'i ~liU the ~,•ity'S ~anr' i~c1 ~ ,~Qp i ^,lu i cc i f n' r ^, i` ~ ' + h ~-,-. ~ ~e port~.._~~, ,ri;,:,~Ge the The {n~eCj~ 3t'y anu dent'ty Of a~,y adlolnl,~y residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of bufferirjg techniques, including screen plantings, open space and o.her~ landscaping techniques.,' The application and initial plat made no prov ision fcr 'this. The revised plat placed a six foot fence on the property line, with all landscapir;g located between the fence and the corr~rr,ercial area. This fenoe comprised a si}. foot n~,asonr v wail directly behind and beside two of the adjoining residences, thereafter a rnix of cedar and rhainlink fencing. When challenged in Planning and Zoning, the c~~~reloper staled he would correct this by extending the masonry fence around the entire pro}est. This is approximately the Berlin Nall in mir+iature, hardly integration with the adjoining residences. Nor with the I ieridian Cen~,etarv, adjoining ors the west nor with the RESIDENCES TO THE WEST whictj have been totally ignored in this~rncess /'\ Policy also requires pe~strian and bike paths. Ttre revised plat hypothetically provided for this by running the path intn the bed of Five Mile Greek., and up the drain ditch. !n this route it Passes under two bridges - which allawing for high water easements, federal wetland, and current elevations, would have less than three foot clearance. The "conceptual" people using this "conceptual" development are, obviously, "conceptually" very short. The City {and Idaho Cade} require ail annexations to the ditches. On previous applications, the developer has ignored the irrigation lateral on this property and the issue of this ditch has been raised several times. On this application, once again, the ditch is ignored. When queried b~y~ Planning and Zoning, the developer has assured that the development will not impede the deliver~y> of irrigation water to the Affected Parties. Several hundred feet of both ingress and egress ditch cross two parts of the development, and will be built over. These are superimposed on Exhibit `~. As this ditch cannot be lowered to accornmodate roadbase or building foundations, cannot be rerouted, the assurance is impossible. `~Je see such cavalier disregard far City requirements -the apparent ignore anything, draw anything, agree to anything - as supportive of our initial contention: there is +"~+J actual irstent to deveioo this property, 1.5 THIS DEVELOPMENT WELL BE ENJOINED ON DAMAGE TO SOLE SOURCE POTABLE WATER. It can be legally established that this development ~vili sit directly on top of, and cover over most of the domestic water table used by tare Affected Parties, residences between the proposed developrrEent and the Gemetary, and the Gemetary itself. All of the Affected Parties, most of the residences to the west, and the Gemetary hold Gourt awarded watertight on this table. The residence to be removed in the project does NuT have a watertight, As a technicalifi~, the Findings of Fact require this well to be capped, but authorize it to be used for irrigation purposes. The v~jatertable, measured from the well head, is about 15 to 2u feet below the surface, rising and falling naticably with the irrigation season, The under burd~on is extemely pourous, mostly sand and river rock - at one time, there was an attempt to locate a gravel pit where this development is proposed. With this development arise three easily foreseeable damages. First, as with most of the domestic watertables in Meridian, our watertafJle is recharged from irrigation. With cessation or irrigation, this supply will foreseeabl'y be depleted. This is happening elsewhere in this area as the known result of development. Second, by the shallow nature of the watertable, construction can foreseeably alter, r;r contaminate the water supply. T bird, the development will require storm drainage. Five; i ile Greek is regulated by the Federal Glean Water Act so it is net a source of storm water disposal for this development, Consequently, the developer will be req!~ired t0 dispOSe Of storrti water 'within ttte development, This will require draining it directly into our domestic water table. The water supply will be foreseeably contaminated. n As there is na other source of water available to the Affected Parties, et al, and as residences are worthless without water or with cantaminated water, there is na doubt damage will be incurr ed Therefore, we have every intention of aatianing this development if alternative water is not provided. We, obviously, have no other choice but to da so. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TG P,YOID CONTEST AND LEGAL ACTION. THIS DEVELOPMENT ACTiJALLY ASSURES CONTEST AND LEGAL ACTION WILL OCCUR. 2. SHOULD COUNCIL ELECT TO PROCEED WITH INTERMEDIATE CONSIDERATION IT IS REQUESTED THIS APPLICATION BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM M 1 SSI ON. 2.1 PIJE~LMC iNFORMAT[ON HAS BEEN DISTORTED AND PUBLMC KNOWLEDGE IS WHOLLY INCOMPLETE, Sy the Developer's inference, as above, this application has as yet to have an INFORMED Public Hearing. The circulatian for Nearing before Planning and Zaning, and again for Hearing before City Council, strongly implied that the Affected Parties were in agreement with, and part af, the project. The anly other public information, an article in the Valle~,r News, was that the Affected Parties were working with the Developer. These three events, we believe, were deliberate distortions. And, we further believe, these may approach perjury. Therefare, the appliaation iS as yet incomplete for submissian to City Council (or ,far that matter, Planning and Zoning since all assurances made there are caveat emptor by recirculation of the plat already declined by Planning and Zoning). 2.2 THE APPLICATION IS CONGEPTIAL BEYOND REASON. Because this application is "CONGEPT!JAL",all the City has with this developer is a pramise to argue the development through the Canditianal Use process. During the tabling process, the Developer has made a series of agreements which amount to generalized pramises, The "canceptual" timetable of phases, still nonspecific, is an example- this is not an actual timetable, but a promise to submit one later in the process. Conceptual or not, certain things will not change on this property. These include the spine road, waterline, irrigation ditches, and landscaping requirements. These are not canceptual. Therefore, it is within reason and legal demand to require what a prudent and serious developer- would have dare before seeking zoning an annexatian - a basic plan of those conditians which will not change: actual core utilities, irrigation and tiling, spine road, and landscaping. This would further include eliminating the "CONCEPT4.iAL" retail at Frankl in and South Loaust drove which a prudent and seriaus developer v~rould acknowledge has already been rejected by Cauncil. 3. SHOULD COUNCIL ELECT TO PROCEED WITH FINAL CONSIDERATION WE ARE WITHIN REASON AND LEGAL DEMAND TO REQUEST THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE PLACED ON THE DEVELOPMENT. /'~ 3.1 THAT THE 3,1 ACRES, OR SO, ON THE ?NTERSECTfOfJ OF SOUTH ! OCUST GROVE AND FRANK,~IN ROADS BE WITHDRAWN, AND FOREVER HELD, FROf i OTHER THAN R- l DEVELOPMENT. The Comprehensive Plan has the Entrance Corridors Goal Statement that such entrances t~ tha city be aesthetically pleasing, Because this portion of land is located within a square mile of extremely law density housing, no amount of buffering or landscaping can make a transit ion to the environment or the adjoining residences. 1t wil? always look like a penninsula. The corner also contains federal wetlands, is regulated by the C-lean Water Act, and is within the 100 year flood catchment. it addition, to be viable for any except R-1 use, either the hil?side must be sheared and lowered. or the basin backfilled. Either of these actions will involve federal action, and potential civil dispute. 3.2 THAT BERMING BE MANDATED AROUND THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, AND REGAF;D EXISTING E.ASErIEPJTS. The July 1 1 , l X95 Findings of Fact of the Commission hate emphasized landscaped berming. The developer has offered a masonry fence, with landscaping toward the commercial side. And no regard has yet been levied for the affect of this development on the Cemetary or the residents to the west. We make demand for a low fence upon a landscaped berm; we make demand that this fence be masonry. A. similar arrangement is exemplified, screening the development from the Freeway at the Edgeview Subdivision, substituting masonry for cedar fencing. Further, it is within reason and legal demand that the developer bond funds, or property purchasers be required to maintain the landscaping to avoid a fire and health hazard. Easements are reiterated, as they will push the bertr~ as much as 1 O feet back from the existing fence line. The developer has assured P?arming and Zoning that he will recognize these setbacks. But he has never incorporated these easements into ar,,~~ plat, for aiaG~ development, submitted to Council to date - including this one. 3.3 THAT LANDSCAPIPJG USE ONt.Y TAP ROOTED, EVERGREEN STOCK. Because a concrete irrigation ditch is involved, spreading root stock trees can damage the ditch. Tf-~is would result in property damage to the adjoining residences, and distruction of ditches elsewhere, It is reasonable to demand tree and shrub stock which are benign to adjoining properties. There is a general propensity for developers to use willow, poplar, and cottonwood for screening because they are cheaper. This is logical inmost eases, but not where ditches are involved. The reasonable demand for evergreens is to provide year round screening. 3.4 THAT A 9" CONCRETE BARRIER BE BURIED TO A DEPTH OF SIX FEET ON THE 'WEST SIDE OF THE IRRIGATION DITCH AT THE PROPERTIES AT 185 AND 215 SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD. Due to ground water problems, the foredescribed residences have French Drains on the fenceline with the proposed development. These service a very serious ground water problem created, in part, by irrigation (this property is higher than adjairg properties to the east) and, it part, by ditch seepage. These sumps then channel the water around the properties to avoid flooding and house foundation damage. With development, irrigation will cease but the ditch must remain. Therefore, these drains are extemely necessary, and will continue to be necessary, and must be safeguarded and any developer is under obligation to keep landscaping roots from plugging these drains. The least expensive method would be to put concrete slabs to below the drains' level as a barrier to root invasion. These drains are four to five feet deep; the concrete barrier would neeb to be six feet deep to compensate. 3.5 THAT ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BE A PLANNED, SINGLE STORY, OFFICE COMPLEX, ONLY. Retailers require high volume traffic, and extended business hours. Their noise and lighting, and in the case of restaurants, their smell, are totally incampatable with the existng neigpborhood, berm or no, which is R-1 residential and the Cemetary. Meanwhile, light industrial, such as "supply" as shown on tt`+e plat, can range Pram a prirrt shop to a lumberyard But, typically, ANY light industry requires rright lighting far equipment security, This close to the Cemetary and residences, the indirect lighting on residences and the Cemetary will encourage vandalism. A feature enhanced by the `act that landscaped bern°+s can became an allurement. The demand for single story buildings is obvious. All of the Affected Residenaes are at the very back of their properties, due to mound water problems, typically 20 to 30 feet from the fence line. Offices of more than one start' would look directly down, and into, these pauses. This definitely would not blend with the existing use, and would be a known intrusion into privacy. :~.6 THAT POTABLE WATER BE LAID IN AS THE FIRST PRIORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT POTABLE WATER BE CONNECTED TO ALL AFFECTED PROPERTI ES ON THiS WAT ERTABLE, AS DEFINED BY THE WATER P,IGHTS ISSUED BY THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATEP, RESOURCES, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPER. As destruction of this water table is inevitable, as foredescribed, any developer in this instance is a tort feasor. Accordingly, the developer carries the burdon and all expense of compensating for this damage. We are within legal reason to demand that water be connected to al i existing residences at the developer's expense. This is also practical, since tpe spine road, and with it the water main, should be the first step of development. This places water inclose proximity of all the affected residences on this water table, It is, therefore, a simple matter far the developer to extend lines to these residences. Mast of the wells involved are near the development property line, For the mast part, the only work involved is trenching and simple tee valve for hookup. But since the need for connection is the direct result of tpe developers action, we are also within legal reason to demand the pookup fees be also borne by the developer. And because of tpe immediate risk of contamination of this table from construction, we are further within legal reason to demand that before AP~Y OTHER CONSTP.UCTION on this development, the spine road and watermain -with hookup to the residents- be completed. TO REfTERATE, THiS !SA HIGH RISK: PROPERTY. Moreover, we understand from the property owners association of Meridian Heights that this developer is apparantly in litigation far r "conceptual" problems with that deYeiopr rent, adding another finanulai risk to Con'lpletlori of Franklin, Grave. We anticipate that both the Franklin Grove oroiect, and the developer wi11 financially fail and we d'u not want t_he watertable ruined by partial wore then left wiihout water bathe dev~looer'; bankrUOtC~ Because a;e cannot speak for al i affected parties, the option of accepting the above hookups may be declined, at the homeowner's decision, on a case by case basis. 3.7 THAT THE DEVELOPER BE DENIED USE OF EXISTI!vC; ~'v'ELLS FOR iRRiGA.T ION. The customary warding of Findings of Fact require all ~velopers to cap domestic wells when supplying city water, i-aowever, the worriir~g allows the developer to use those same wells for irrigation, in this instance, thedevelopmant (!F THE 3.1 ACRESAT FRANKLIP~AND SOJTH LOCUST GRO'vE A,RE INCLUDED) will include one residence and two wells. The owner has no water right, and the de~~reioper could attempt to pressure ir~r igate the entire development from these veils. This would be a violation of existing waterrights, ar~d ~jrould be legally actioned. We are within legal reason to demanL that 9r this property is included in the development, that the Findings of Fact specifi~_ally cap these 4vells and prohibit any further use. 3.a THAT .ALL AFFECT ED PROPERTIES (~(~ TH!S WATERTAL'iLE BE GONPJECTED `~JITH CITY SEWER. Ail p,~operties involved are on septic. Lust as the depletion or cantarnination of the potable uvater is foreseeable, also foreseeable is that the chlorination in city water will destroy the m iCr obes of the septic systems. Concominant a~ith the water hookup, we ar e also within legal reason to demand that the developer supply sewer to ail affected residences, and insure the hookup fees. So deposed, the Affected Parties making joint submission: h We are Archie T, and Ernestine M, Rpberson, property owners of ? 85 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 25 years. This property is two acres, dependent ups?r, surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are James N. and Ann C. Witherel i, property owners of 215 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for ? 7 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Yee are Gene and Yernadene Pressley, property owners of 255 South Locust Grove Road and we have lived at this location for 28 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian irrigation District. 1h'e are Robert R. and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 2~~ years. This property is 2.5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion in this matter; ,,, ~'~ ~~ ,,.._..._- Cr ~. -' ,1 ,,,~ ~~~ ~~ ~.~ rC. 8--~ 5 - cs y ,~~~- ~~~' i~~~. August 15, 1995 The following names and addresses are submitted on behalf of the citizens who oppose the proposed commercial development of the SW corner of the Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road intersection. These agencies and individuals deal with or have dealt with environmental problems and/or permits. 1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Dam Lucky Peak Lane Boise, Idaho Mr. Robert Flowers (208-343-0671) Mr. Greg Martinez 2. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Central Snake Projects Office 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, Idaho 83702 Mr. John Claywood )208-334-1463 3. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 1503 1st Street South Nampa, Idaho 83651 (208-343-1884) Mr. Bill Hansen (208-345-2431) (shop) 4. Meridian City Dept of Public Works Mr. Gary Smith - City Engineer (208-887-2211) Ms. Sherri Styles - City Planner (208-888-4433 The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has jurisdiction over the 5-Mile Creek Watershed and will make any requested or required reviews of the watershed for wetlands and environmental impact of lands adjacent to the creek. Although an environmental impact study may not be required, the public can demand that one be made for the area upstream and downstream of the intersection of 5-Mile Creek and the Franklin/South Locust Grove roads. This request must be filed with the Walla Walla Corp of Engineers office or their Lucky Peak office. The Five Mile Creek is one of the few natural year round flowing creeks or streams located in the Treasure Valley and therefore follows under the jurisdiction of the Corp of Engineers for Management. Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang St. Meridian, Idaho 83642 ,~ ~..~ July 18, 1994 Meridian City Planning Commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Wildlife Refuge and Overdevelopment Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Gentlemen: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you may or may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment. The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your commission review this area to see if it is recognized as following under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the City of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on their review and findings. A report of these findings should be made available to the public for their comment. In addition to the above, this proposed development with its high density would create serious problems for the area it is to be located within. The Meridian schools cannot handle the addition of all of the families with children that would be imposed upon it. The increased automobile traffic flow that this would create on /'~ n Franklin Road, along with increased pedestrian traffic and no sidewalks could create a bad situation. This kind of high density would only benefit the developer and not the community. The City of Meridian has become known as being the fastest growing town in the state of Idaho. Lets forget about quantity and set our goals on quality. We need to improve the quality of our community, our schools, our people and our lives. It's time that the developers began conforming to the needs of the people and the community of the City of Meridian and not their personal gain and greed. You must not forget that you and only you are responsible for the final decision and it needs to reflect that of the people of Meridian. Yours truly, ~' ~~~' ~~ iLF_7c-;-t -i-.. -~ Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 /'~ ~ July 18, 1994 Mr. Robert Flowers U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Dam Lucky Peak Lane Boise, Idaho Subject: Wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you may or may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment.The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your agency review this area to see if it is recognized as following under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the City of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on your findings and report. I would appreciate your early response to my letter. Thank you. Yours truly .F-~ Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 cc: Meridian Planning Commision „~„H US Army Corps of Engineers Recognizing Wetla~ads Young least terns . __~~ m r~ ~ . ,. ,.,. r r ~ ~.i~- ,_. .. _~. r9..'IC~tt'`~. __..~.e ... .~1~#•l f r~ir*t....•~i fi+._•~`A,:,r.wb$.~~ ,..,._ ~,~ ~s, ti, .= ita~i ~C ~ ' .•~.. a 4.~}ice ~--~~~( .. ~ ~-. , a _ 3'~ have a wetland. If you intend to place dredged or fill material in a wetland or in an area that might be a wetland, contact the local Corps District Office for assistance in determining if a permit is required. wetland complex What is a wetland? The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the US Environmental Protection Agency jointly define wetlands as follows: These areas that are inundated a- saturated by surface or ground water at a fi•equenc.v and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation t}pica/Iti• adapted for life in sattu•ated soil conditions. Wetlands ,~ener- allr inc/ude,rwamps, marshes, bogs, and similarareas. Wetlands are areas that are covered by water or have waterlogged soils for long periods during the growing sea- son. Plants growing in wetlands are capable of living in saturated soil conditions for at least part of the growing season. Wetlands such as swamps and marshes are often obvious. but some wetlands are not easily recognized, often because they are dry during part of the year or "they just don't look very wet" from the roadside. Some of these wetland types include, but are not limited to, many bottom- land forests, pocosins, pine savannahs, bogs, wet meadows, potholes, and wet tundra. The information presented here usually will enable you to determine whether you might Why is it necessary to consider whether an area is a wetland? • Placement of fill material. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested in depositing dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States, including x~etlarrds," must receive authoriza- tion for such activities. The Corps has been assigned responsibility for administering the Section 404 permitting process. Activities in wetlands for which permits may be required include, but are not limited to: Ditching activities when the excavated material is sidecast. • Levee and dike construction. _,,., ~. - ..... fi,~.-. - . . - -. ,. - i+- . -. --..._~. • w ~~- Wetlands fill activities ___ ~ ,,..~l..r~wy1 ,,,~., ~,~~l~:__ ~ i • Mechanized land clearing. • Land leveling. • Most road construction. • Dam construction. The final determination of whether an area is a wetland and whether the activity requires a permit must be made by the appropriate Corps District Office. How can wetlands be recognized? The Corps uses three characteristics of wetlands when making wetland determinations -vegetation, soil, and hy- drology. Unless an area has been altered or is a rare natural situation, wetland indicators of all three characteristics must be present during some portion of the growing season for an area to be a wetland. Each characteristic is discussed below. However, there are some general situations in which an area has a strong probability of being a wetland. If any of the following situations occur, you should ask the local Corps office to determine whether the area is a wetland: • Area occurs in a floodplain or otherwise has low spots in which water stands at or above the soil surface during the growing season. Caution: Mnst x~etlands lack both standing rater and waterlogged soils during at least part of the growing season. • Area has plant com- munities that commonly occur in areas having stand- ing water for part of the growing sea- son (e.g., cy- press-gum swamps, cordgrass marshes, cat- tail marshes, bulrush and rule marshes, and sphag- nwn bobs). • Area has soils that are called peals or mucks. • Area is periodically flooded by tides, even if only by strong, wind-driven, or spring tides. Many wetlands can be readily identified by the general situation stated above. For the boundary of these areas and numerous other wetlands, however, it is unclear whether these situations occur. In such cases, it is necessary to carefully examine the area for wetland indicators of the three major characteristics of wetlands -vegetation, soil, and hydrology. Wetland indica- tors of these characteristics, which may indicate that the area is a wetland, are described on the following pages. Freshwater wetland Salt marsh Mangrove wetland 4 Vegetation indicators Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. These plants, known as h~d~~ph}•tic re•getation, are listed in regional publications of the US Fish and Wildlife Service [available from the National Technical Information Ser- vice INT[S); see last page for address]. However, you can usually determine if wetland vegetation is present by knowing a relatively few plant types that commonly occur in your area. For example, cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress. willows, mangroves. sedges, rushes, arrowheads, and water plantains usually occur in wetlands. Other indica- tors ofplants growing in wetlands include trees having shallow root systems. swollen trunks (e.g., bald cypress, tupelo gum), or roots found growing from the plant stem ttutton bush or trunk above the soil surface. Several Corps offices have published pictorial guides of representative wetland plant types. ff you cannot determine whether the plant t}~pes in your area are those that commonly occur in wetlands. ask the local Corps District Office or a local botanist for assistance. Soil indicators There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands. Such soils, called Itrdric soils, have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. If the soil in your area is listed as hydric by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) [information available from local county SCS], the area might be a wetland. tf the name of the soil in your area is not known, an examination of the soil can determine the presence of anv hydric soil indicators, including: Vegetation sampling method • Soil consists predominantly of decomposed plant mate- rial (peals or mucks). • Soil has a thick layer of decomposing plant material on the surface. • Soil has a bluish gray or gray color below the surface, or the major color of the soil at this depth is dark (brownish black or black) and dull. • Soil has the odor of rotten eggs. • Soil is sandy and has a layer of decomposing plant material at the soil surface. • Soil is sandv and has dark stains or dark streaks of organic material in the upper layer below the soil sur- face. These streaks are decomposed plant material at- tached to the soil particles. When soil from these streaks is rubbed between the fingers, a dark stain is left on the fineers. Sampling core Soil sampling Gray mottles indicate hydric soil conditions in thick, dark prairie soils (mollisols) 6 Hydrology indicators Wetland hydrology refers to the presence of water at or above the soil surface for a sufficient period of the year to significantly influence the plant types and soils that occur in the area. Although the most reliable evidence of wetland hydrology may be provided by sagin~ station or groundwater well data, such information is limited for most areas and, when available, requires analysis by trained individuals. Thus, most hvdroloeic indicators are those that can be ob- served during field inspection. Most do not reveal either the frequency, timing, or duration of flooding or the soil satura- tion. However, the following indicators provide some evi- dence of the periodic presence of flooding or soil saturation: • Standing or flowing water is observed on the area during the growing season. • Soil is waterlogged during the growing season. • Water marks are present on trees or other erect objects. Such marks indicate that water periodically covers the area to the depth shown on the objects. • Drift lines, which are small piles of debris oriented in the direction of water movement through an area, are present. These often occur along contours and repre- sent the approximate extent of flooding in an area. Debris lodged against trees This brochure is not intended to be used to make a final wetland determination or delineation: it is intended, however, to provide some general information concerning wetlands identitication. What to do if your area has wetlands that you propose to alter? Contact the Corps District Office that has responsibility for the Section 404 permitting process in your area. This office will assist you in defining the boundary of any wetlands on your property, and will provide instructions for applying for a Section 404 permit, if necessary. Fluctuating wetland hydrology Section 404 permit needed Tlris hrochure describes, in trontechnical terms, wa~~s an individual ran determine ~~herher an area ma~• he a x~etland for pmnoses of the Cot ps of En,~~ineers re~~ulatoay program. !t « Iso tells H~hn to contact if you think an urea to be altered is a x~etlund. US Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Pon Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Key NTIS Telephone Numbers To place an order (703) 487-4650 For help in identifying a title for sale (703) 487-4780 Front Core Seasonally flooded wetland forest I0'3Jdd 6b09 L88 60Z ,~ __ ..~ Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Deve/opmen! Analyst ?~l~A~jd9~X~~4tt~4~X 3045 Thayen Place - eo"Ise, Idaho 83109 b~ :0Z 56. ~z ftON Telephone 362-9345 Fax 362-9416 i,nmpret,unnwe Pla"'~~"'' ~ 21 November 1995 C~ly a Fegional t^lan tJpdatcs ~! Cititcn R~.~~a '"~~ Pa:t,cipatiun Mr. Will ~3erg, City Clerk (:ommuNty City of Meridian N O V 2 1 15~~ ~'P?a`i°"' 33 E. Idaho Ave. Gru~Ntn Meridian, 1D 836x2 CITY OF ~E~IQ~~ rearsgemwa Pion Implem0nlntion dear MT. 13efg: Zoning. AnnexaUOn ~ ort the a lication fo Mf. Michael Preston for annexation and ~ DCvnloprnCnt 1 am writ' to supp PP o,a~nsnoes zoning to Commercial General of approximately 30 acres of land generally located on the southwest corner of Franklin Road and l ,oeust Grove Road. 1 dm purchasing twelve Cole rnalysis acres of business property along the railroad tracks just North of Mr. Preston s prop Lartd 1 do not object to Mr. Preston's annexation and zoning request tc~ C-G. Due to the p„vaop;ncnt Pl;tnnu,g b amount cif growth Meridian is experiencing, it iti necessary to have quality businesses to NcgoUutiens en~afge the City of Meridian tax base. Please approve this application. InlraUUCUlre ?+?anniny Respectfully, Rcvitalizalion Plan, ~~ l=~nnoniiC ~ Wayne Forrey, CP oevciopment Owner Cnmrnvnity [1CvP.leprnCnt Fl~an~C Analysis cc Michael Preston Facai t,+;pnratior+;; hunainy SUsteg~os Mtbli;; Vohr.y w~tU9tion ProjcCl M3nagcmrnt (:nntracl Play ~ning r,^:rvit;t:S IA Clli':f~ rs Coin+IleS ~~ Membae American Inst?lu1C al Cerb6ed Plannors - American Planning A59otiatiw+ - Idshu vtr~nning au;nriation .__ ,....r.~a _ _... ..~ , .__ ~. , -_ . _..--r.-r~- - - .~T,~.'..~~~ A3~~Od S 3NAdM WO~d l00 'd C'SC' ~~ ~,~ Monte C. McClure 1475 E. Franklin Rd Meridian, ID 83642 November 21, 1995 City Council City of Meridian Meridian, ID 83642 Gentlemen: I am sorry that I cannot testify in person, but I have a previous commitment tonight. I am writing this letter in support of Mr. Preston's request of a zone change on my property from RT to CG zone. When the comprehensive plan was written, I discussed the proposed use (mixed use) with your planner at the time Wayne Forey. He told me that mixed use meant high density residential, commercial or a combination of the two. I agreed with him. Those uses were consistent with my belief of the highest and best use of the property. The plan as submitted is in conformance with the comprehensive plan as approved by the City of Meridian. I have owned the property for over 20 years. It was purchased for speculation to be sold when the time was right. The time is right, however, it cannot be sold as anything except a pasture without zoning that will allow it to be developed to its highest and best use. In talking to Mr. Preston and Mr. Daskeland, they are serious about proceeding with a project that will put the property to beneficial use. Thank you for your time and again I am sorry that I couldn~t be here in person to talk to you. Sincerely, ~- Monte C. McClure ~ ~ The High Demand for Meridian: Both Land & Buildings I am Hoyt Michener, I work with my father Roger Michener of Michener Investments. We have been in business for over 20 years exclusively in commercial real estate. Our office has done a tremendous amount of leasing and sales over the years for all commercial users: retail, office, industrial, and investment properties. We have also completed several developments as well. In dealing with both developers and users, we associate with various clients and contacts. One noticeable trend is a tremendous serge towards Meridian. We get calls in our office from tenants wanting to lease space "right now" in Meridian. Office space is in great demand as well as warehouse space. We also get calls for retail buildings, both for lease and for sale. All of these uses have vacancy rates in Meridian that are extremely low. Existing buildings are scarce and full with a waiting list. New construction takes time to occupy, but with nothing for lease or for sale, the new clients must deal with the new product. Several lease tenants have gone ahead and purchased land to build on and own themselves. We get calls every week from people who are interested in Meridian. This tells me there is a high demand for Meridian. As far as streets, Franklin has been very strong this past year, and will continue to be strong in the future. In my opinion it will only get better. There are so many people taking the new Eagle Exit (coming from Boise) who travel north on Eagle Road and then west on Franklin to access Meridian. Why? The Meridian Exit has exploded with growth and has created some congestion, and a stop light. But by taking the Eagle Exit and coming in on Franklin Road there are less stops and congestion. Plus you can take Locust Grove to cut north over to Fairview if needed. Franklin Road needs to be improved ASAP, due to the amount of traffic that it is already carrying -and for the future. There are two developments, close to this parcel, that have been generating interest. Both are industrial zoned subdivisions and both have done extremely well this past year trying to meet the demand in Meridian. But just two are not enough. Both are nearly 1/2 developed and/or sold to be developed soon. Yes, in my opinion, there is a demand for more commercial development along Franklin Road in Meridian. /'~ Wayne S. Forrey, AICr- Urban Planner and Development Analyst n 3045 Thayen Place -Boise, Idaho 8309 ,_„r~prenensive Telephone 362-9345 Pax 362-9416 rlanning / „itv 5 Reoionai ~ o rr...,R...t.,.,- i nnc Pion Updates ~` .,..gam i'!zec ., Participation Mr. Will Berg, City Clerk [ ~'; .,' ~ :` „~: c°'rmur'ity City of Meridian aeia;,on5 33 E. Idaho Ave. ~+a ~~` ~~~ a~~i~:.~m~~~ ~. `'r°`"'-'' Meridian ID 83642 tvlanagement , Plan implementation Dear Mr. Berg: Zoning, Annexation a Development I am writing to support the application fo Mr. Michael Preston for annexation and ordinan°es zoning to Commercial General of approximately 30 acres of land generally located on the code Analysis southwest corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. I am purchasing twelve acres of business property- along the railroad tracks just North of Mr. Preston's property. zv I do not object to Mr. Preston's annexation and zoning request to C-G. Due to the eiopment D Planning a amount of growth Meridian is experiencing, it is necessary to have quality businesses to r,egotiauons enlarge the City of Meridian tax base. Please approve this application. Infrastructure Planning Respectfully Revitalization , Plans Economic ~~'~~• Development Wayne Forrey, CP Owner Community Development Finance Analysis cc Michael Preston scat Implications Funding Strategies Public Policy Eva!uaton F'fOject P~tanagement Contract ~9annJno St~r~lces to Cities & Counties ~~~~ Member: American Institute of Certi'ied Planners -American Planning Association -Idaho Planning Association /'ti ~"1 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 17 1995 APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 27 REQUEST; MICHAEL PRESTON• FRANKLIN LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY RECONSIDERATION AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS L X~ ~Fw' a'~ h~ Ir~ ~( ~ ~t~ OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. O C T 1 2 ~~a ~T'Y OF MERIDIAN October 12, 1995 Mr. William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk - City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Franklin Locust Grove Property Reconsideration Dear Mr. Berg: I am requesting the City of Meridian's consideration for a rehearing of my request for annexation and zoning of the 30 acre parcel located at the South West Corner of Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. You are aware that the Council denied the annexation of this property a few weeks ago. I am requesting this reconsideration because the City Council did not have access to a detailed plat of this property that I prepared for the Planning & Zoning Commission. This plat was the primary basis for the Planning and Zoning Commissions unanimous approval of their favorable recommendation to the City Council to annex and zone this parcel to C-G. It also addressed the Councils concern in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding a lack of information about what I am proposing on this parcel. Because this proposal is in conformance to Meridian's comprehensive plan for this area and you were not privileged to all the information that I had presented in this application, I would request Councils consideration at the next meeting to reschedule this application for a future rehearing, to allow input of ALL the information that should have been included in the past hearing. I am assuming that my past fee payment still valid. I will be available at your a detailed report of why your Findings and to what I am proposing for this property. S ncerely, l D. Michael Preston Eor this application is next meeting to present Conclusions do not apply MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 11.1995 APPLICANT: MICHAEL PRESTON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G FOR 30 ACRES AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: [~Z~Ii'~I'~L1-~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS "REVIEWED" CITY FIRE DEPT: 3EE ATTACHED COMMENTS CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~/ MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~- A COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ ~ '~~ ~ ~~ ~`~ ~~ ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~ ~ `~ ~~~ ~'` ,,~1 ~r ~ j( CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENT 6 U' ~j~ J o ~ ~~'` ~~ I ~n1" NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~ ~ SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: rr Y INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: 4~ 'A ~ ~~ ~~~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~~ OTHER: A I Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. The Chairman, Planning ar,,, Loning Commission City of Meridian MARCH 18 , 1995 ~ ~C~~;~ MAR Z 7 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAN In the matter of FRANKLIN GROVE COMfi'IERCiAL DEVELOPP'IENT, petition far annexation and rezoning as commercial property. We are the affected residents irnmediately adjoining the development, on the east: hereinafter referred to as the Affected Parties, to clarify we do not represent any other affected party to this application. Our names, signatures, and property descriptions conclude this testimony, Please record as Public Hearing Testimony that the Affected Parties oppose this development, on the points cited below, and ask it be disapproved. BACKGROUND INVOLVINGTHEAFFECTED PARTIES This same parcel has appeared before the Commission as Aspen Grove Estates, seeking PUD zoning, and Preston's Aspen Grove Estates seeking R-15 zoning. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were issued by the City Council, August 2, i 994, and Council declined annexation based upon these findings. From the fact the applicant now seeks commercial zoning means, to the Affected Parties, that the developer has no specific design or intent; that annexation in any manner is sought for some ulterior motive f presumably resale as zoned property for any purpose). Moreover, we question whether the developer is a proper legal agent to request annexation. In the matters of the PUD and R-15 requests, he testified he was the owner of the property, having earnest money paid on the property. On these plats, he was listed as property owner. However, at a (brief) meeting with the Affected Parties, March 7, 1995, he claimed he had no financial interest in the property, then or now, and has established no quid pro quo. On the plat, he is not listed as the property owner. Ordinarily, courtesy meetings between the developer and affected parties are nonsequiter; moot far purposes of legal content. However, this aforementioned meeting sets the tone, that of the developer's contempt for affected parties and Council and, accordingly, is detailed. First, it must be clarified that in previous applications, the developer was in partnership with one Norm Brown. Brown now informs the Affected Parties, that he has now withdrawn from the partnership, opposes deveopment, and it is noted his property is not included in the annexation request. Second, it must also be clarified that all of the Affected Parties had read and discussed the Findings of Fact, precluding high c~nsity development, from the previous applications; we are on record as concurring with these findings at the August ~, 1994 Council meeting. Furthermore, all of the Affected Parties were aware that the schools serving this area are capped, a fact restriction under the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Affected Parties approached the meeting knowing high density housing not viable. At the meeting of March 7, the developer informed the Affected Parties: - That no developer would ever build any housing of quality on this property, so the Affected Parties were foolish to hope for anything but high c~nsity pausing, or commercial property; - That his intent had been to again seek high density zoning, and presented a plat of 141 duplexes. The `park' area on the plat was drawn as a thin strip immediately abutting the Affected Parties; - That, however, he had talked with members of the Commission and Council, and that these members had informed him Commission and Council desired this property to be developed as commercial; - That, accordingly, the developer would seek commercial zoning instead; - That, given the City's predisposition, it would be of little use for the Affected Parties to fight commercial development in a public hearing process. - That, therefore, the developer would change his plan to commercial ~velopment, and asked the affected parties to join him in making a joint application for commercial zoning and annexation; he would not charge us any fee for making this application. This was unanimously declined by the Affected Parties, and the developer was informed that the Parties would fight such a proposal. In absolute contradiction, the developer's application implies the Affected Parties desire commercial annexation. lh'e serious doubt any Commissioner or Council Member would work outside of the annexation rules, to entice the developer as portr~a,~ed. The developer is misrepresenting the Council to the Affected Parties, and the Affected Parties to the Council. A simply misrepresentation by the ~veloper.could be overlooked as careless. However, given the aforesaid, the nature of this application, and previous applications and sworn testimony, his misrepresentations are chronic and nonaccidental. Gentlemen, recognize that this process is devolving from rnuncipal to criminal law, in which the developer implies you are participants, joint and severally. In recognition, it is the conclusion and remedy of the Affected Parties that: 1. THE DEVELOPER WILLFULLY M{SREPRESEhITS THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED. The plat submitted for application includes, as commercially developed, all the land owned 6y the Affected Parties. As the developer is well aware, said parties have no interest whatsoever in converting their properties to commercial use. Nor in any manner have they agreed to enroll their property with the developer's. This plat, therefore, is a fraudulent document, knowing and intended to mislead the Commission and Council. Moreover, the ~veloper knows there is no commercial value in the land owned by the Affected Parties: this land drains into federally designated wetland, and transcends a slope to well below /'\ road level. Both these featu, ~s preclude commercial development. Constyuently, the developer also willfully misrepresents land use. IT IS THE REQUEST AND REASONABLE LEGAL DEMAND OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DENIEDAS FRAUDULENT. IF THE DEVELOPER WISHES TOAPPLY FOR ANNEXATION, THAT HE BE FORCED TO SUBMIT ANEW AND INCLUDE ONLY THE LAND AVAILABLE TO HIM TO DEVELOP. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PRECLUDED BY FINDINGS OF FACT. In the Council's determination of Preston's Aspen Grave Estates, Finding 4 concluc~d, inter olio, that `the property requested to be zoned C-N should not abut the single family residential property'. By extention of precedent, this prohibition extends to all existing residences, being single family residences, both on the east and west sides of the proposed c~velopment, IT IS THE REQUEST AND REASONABLE LEGAL DEMAND OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT BY DENIED BY PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED ON THIS PROPERTY. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTANT WITH EXISTING LAND USE. Although the Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates this area to no specified use, a point which the developer misconstrues as any use. However, it should be clear that the only functional use is residential: the proposed c~velapment is bounded on the east entirely by R-1 housing; it is bounded on the west by R-1 housing and the cemetary; antl on the south by pasturage (which , in turn, is bounded by R-1 housing). Any non-residential, non-transitional use would create an enclave, enclaves being prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan. It is largely because the pion sets this area to na specific use that the Affected Parties have been unduly harrassed in three applications (and it is safe to assume future applications), as the Plan encourages atrial -and -error approach to annexation and ~veiapment. IT !S THE REQUEST AND REASONABLE LEGAL DEMAND OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT BE DENIED AS INCONSISTANT WITH THE MERIDIAN C01"1PREHENSIVE PLAN. IT IS THE FURTHER REQUEST AND REASONABLE DEMAND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE AMENDED, IN LIEU OF THREE APPLICATIONS ON THIS LAND, TO BE DEFINED AS L01~V DENSITY (R - 2)RESIDENTIAL. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT iS ONLY `CONCEPTUAL' (AGAIN). it is the wont of this developer to avoid stating exact use and layout (and at no time ever commit anything to writing). This was obviated in the two previous applications and is repeated now. What is `conceptually' portrayed is actually Light ! ndustrial. What can eventuate could range from a gravel pit to theme park. This places an undue burn on Commission, Council and Affected Parties, that of guessing actual intent and outcome. The `concept' and the plat regard no existing easements, irrigation or, for that matter, actual land ownership. Thereby, the application is frivolous and the recurrence of vague, `conceptual' plans borers upon barratry, and legal nuisance. /'~ IT IS THE REQUEST AND REASONABLE LEGAL GEMAND OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT THIS APPLICATION 8E DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5. THE DEYELOPMENT tS LITIGIOUS. Because the application and plat are frivolous, the Affected Parties are denied proper retort for safeguarding irrigation and domestic water rights, subsurface drainage, or property values. These are actionable, and any development not safeguarding these er,isting features will be enjoined. IT IS THE REQUEST AND REASONABLE LEGAL DEMAND OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DENIED DUE TO ITS LITIGIOUS NATURE. 6. THE DEVELOPMENT IMPUNES FEDERAL WETLANDS. It was contended in previous comment by the Affected Parties that the area of Franklin and South Locust Grove Roads were designated wetlands. It was contended by the developer that they were not. in this application, as previously, the c~veloper has simply platted over this area. Documentation has now been provided by the Affected Parties to the Meridian Planning Director, estabiishin that the land in question is, indeed, federally designated wetlands - as well as regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. By this, therefore, the appl ication begs correspondency of the City in a federal dispute. The Affected Parties also caution that the the land in question is also regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation. !f needed, the Affected Parties will also secure ~cumentation from these ~encies, although it is usually not the responsibility of affected parties to ~ this footwork far the City. So posed, the Affected Parties making faint submission; We are Archie T, and Ernestine M. Roberson, property owners of 185 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 25 years. This property is two acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as defined by the Department of YNater Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Ad vaiorum appraisal for 1994 is $101 ,500, being a one story, brick structure with an exposed basement. We are James N. and Ann C. Witherell ,property owners of 215 South Locust Grove Road, and we have 1 ived at this location for i 7 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as defined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Ad valorum appraisal for 1994 is $79,SO0, being a two story, frame structure with no basement. 4 We are Gene and Yernadene ~ ~ essley, property owners of 255 South Loc~.~i Grove Road and we have 1 ived at this location for 28 years. This property is one acre, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian i rrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic wel 1, with a patented water right on the pool, as c~fined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Rd valorurn appraisal for i 994 is $81 ,500, being a one stary, frame structure with a full basement. We are Robert R. and Jeri Smith, property owners of 355 South Locust Grove Road, and we have lived at this location for 29 years. This property is 2.5 acres, dependent upon surface irrigation, and we are duly subscribed to the Nampa Meridian irrigation District. The residence is serviced by domestic well, with a patented water right on the pool, as c~fined by the Department of Water Resources, extending from South Locust Grove Road to the Meridian Cemetary. Rd valorum appraisal for 1994 is $144,550, being a one story, brick structure with a partial ly exposed basement. The aforesaid we believe to be the true representation of fact, and our opinion in this matter: ~,. , , /i J ~. r ~~~ - -~.. `~~ ~--~~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 9, 1995 Page 2 scheduled meeting on June 13, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Johnson: Any discussion or changes regarding these findings of facts as prepared by the City Attorney? Is there a motion regarding the findings? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that the application shall be tabled to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council. Shearer: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to approve the decision as stated in the 1ndings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-~ BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION (PACKARD SUBDIVISION): Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? We need a motion.