1995 12-12MEF~AN PLANNING & ZONING COMIvl~ION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 9, 1996)
2. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNElEDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 9, 1996)
3. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 9, 1996)
4. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY BOB NAHAS: (TABLED UNTIL
JANUARY 9, 1996)
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN
HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM: (APPROVED FINDINGS; PASS ON
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION BY
DENNIS & JANET BUTTERFIELD: (APRPOVED FINDINGS; PASS ON
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: (APPROVED
FINDINGS; PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY
JOHN EDDY: (APPROVED FINDINGS; PASS ON FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
9. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN EDDY
TABLED AT NOVEMBER 14, 1995 MEETING: (APPROVED; PASS ON
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
10. PUBLIC HEART REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM,4 TO L-0 BY
MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES
PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 9, 1996)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74
UNIT PUD FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Ted Hutchinson, Tom
Ensley, Edna McDonald, Jon Powell, Mike Wardle, David Turnbull, Helen Sharp, Dale
Sharp, Dixie Lee Roberts, Malcolm MacCoy:
Johnson: The first item on the agenda is a personal item for the Commission. We are
here briefly to recognize Charlie Rountree for his past services to the Commission for the
past 8 years. He has done an excellent job, we are sorry to see him go, he has been
elected to the City Council and will be moving on to bigger and better things. On behalf
of the Commission Charlie if you would come up here would like to present you with a
certificate of appreciation for your past service and a paper weight. We wish you well
Charlie in your endeavors and thank you for your past service and thousands of hours
literally that you spent in full community service contribution without any compensation.
We appreciate that. For the public and for maybe some of you that haven't met him yet,
Greg Oslund is our newly appointed Commissioner for Planning & Zoning and has been
appointed to serve in Charlie's stead until January of 1998 so he will finish out that term.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1995:
Johnson: You have these minutes, are there any additions, corrections or deletions?
Entertain a motion for approval of the minutes please.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we approve the minutes.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: I am not aware of any correspondence we have had since then is the applicant
or his representative here? Apparently not, I will entertain a motion to have that tabled to
a date certain.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we table this item number 1 until January 9,
U
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 2
1996.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table item #1 Highlands Ranch until our next
regularly scheduled meeting January 9, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: The next two items I am stepping down because I have an apparent conflict of
interest. The meeting on those two items will be conducted by Commissioner Hepper.
ITEM #2: TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Hepper: It was previously tabled on November 14, 1995 so the City staff could get some
more input on some questions they had. I believe the public hearing was closed at that
time so we won't take any public testimony. Do you guys have any questions.
Alidjani: Commissioner Hepper yes I do, last time we discussed this for an hour and a half
and there were certain items that were not clear such as the easement for the sewer on
Packard No. 2, Mr. Smith can you enlighten us with what has happened since yesterday
when I talked to you in your office?
Smith: Commission members, Commissioner Alidjani, I guess it is today at 2:00 I received
a fax from Tealey's Land Surveying representing the applican# that addresses the
comments that we originally made back in July of this year. I did receive a revised
preliminary plat yesterday afternoon from the applicant's land planner. It did show, the
revised plat did show a sewer line exiting the northwest corner crossing the Vern Alleman
property and stubbing into what is known as Chamberlain Estates Subdivision No. 2
preliminary plat. It is my recollection that preliminary plat on Chamberlain Estates No. 2
has had its effective date of approval extended by the City Council because it was nearing
expiration. I don't know of any plans, I don't know what the developers plans are to
develop that subdivision. At this time that developer of Chamberlain Estates is involved
in the first phase of Chamberlain Estates No. 1 Subdivision. So I can't speak to the time
that may go by before Chamberlain Estates No. 2 is developed which would allow this
applicant's proposed connection to sanitary sewer through Vem Alleman property. A week
ago today I met with Ted Hutchinson and Dave March from Tealey's Land Surveying and
we discussed sewer line, water lines access, public access from Dove Meadows. It was
a result of that meeting that this revised preliminary plat was submitted to my office at
which time I gave a copy to Planning & Zoning Director and a copy to Will's office. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 3
response to our comments, to Public Works Department review comments Ted Hutchinson
faxed to us today has under the site specific comments number 3 has quite a dissertation
on if you have had a chance to review it has quite a dissertation on their attitude toward
approval of a preliminary plat based on some conditions. I guess 1 would have to leave
that dissertation in your court as far as how you feel about it. I spoke with City Attorney
about the conditions of preliminary plats and what we should endeavor to do as staff. I
think he can outline, I made some copies of the specific areas that he referred me to from
the subdivision, development ordinance that speaks to outlining in generality how utilities
are going to be provided to proposed subdivisions. I did receive, I believe you have a
copy also of a letter that Vern Alleman wrote and brought that in today I believe and
received a copy of that. I was also hand delivered an original signature letter just a few
minutes ago from Floyd and Cathy Reichert who live on the west side or are adjacent to
the westerly boundary of this subdivision that needed to have any easement through their
property for sewer line which is off the premises of this subdivision proper. They have
consented in this letter to PNE for an easement to place a sewer line. Which is another
item that I discussed with Tealey's Land Surveying representatives aweek ago today. So
that cleared up that matter. I think that is a summary of my involvement in this project over
the last week.
Hepper: So Gary, have your concerns been satisfied then or do you still have some
concerns that need to be addressed?
Smith: Well, I guess the overriding question that I have is if a plat is approved by the City
of Meridian, preliminary plat is approved by the City of Meridian and there is no, there is
a proposed connection for sewer are we City of Meridian committing ourselves to a kind
of a requirement to assist the developer at a certain point in extending the sewer or getting
the sewer extended. Or can an approval of a subdivision such as this be contingent upon
acquisition of a sewereasement in this case at a future time when a final plat is submitted.
Submittal of a final plat in accordance with the ordinance would require submittal of
development plans. Submittal of development plans would involve a pathway or a right
of way an easement way for the sewer in this case off site. So I guess that gets to be a
question that I am not prepared to answer, I shouldn't say I am not prepared to answer I
can't answer it. All I can say in the length of time that I have been involved in City
engineering work I haven't had to address a situation where a subdivision a proposed
subdivision did not have access to sewer in this case sewer. They have access to water
through the Packard No. 1 subdivision. Reportedly they have access to public right of way
through Packard No. 1 and what was known as Dove Meadows Subdivision which now
that approval has lapsed on that subdivision I believe, the preliminary approval. So I think
the major question here that Ted Hutchinson and I and the developers talked about
yesterday afternoon in my office was can a subdivision be approved contingent upon
future acquisition in this case of sewer right of way. I can understand the developer's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 4
concerns about a preliminary plat and not at this point not acquiring the right of way or
acquiring easements. But in the same breath somewhere along the line they are going to
have to.
Hepper: Thank you Gary.
Oslund: I have a question for Gary, has the developer or his representative provided any
other options in terms of sewer service either verbally or in writing anything?
Smith: No Commissioner, they, we talked, I suggested yesterday that perhaps if the route
through Chamberlain Estates was hindered by another developer that they could cross tot
he north side of the ditch and talk to property owners on the north side about an easement.
Ted Hutchinson indicated that was a possibility that they could pursue but there hasn't
been to my, as far as I know there hasn't been any alternative proposed. We have as part
of Packard No. 1 Subdivision we have been approached by the School District to site an
elementary school adjacent to the northeast corner of Packard No. 1. This would put
additional sewage load into the proposed lift station for Packard No. 1 and I have not given
the school district an answer yet as to whether we have capacity in the gravity line in
Fairview Avenue that would accept this pump station's effluent. But 1 need to do that yet.
I would not be receptive to moving the lift station farther to the north to pick up Packard
No. 2. I say that mainly because I don't know what the capacity in Fairview is, secondly
I have not been an advocate nor has the City Council been an advocate of pumping
sewage from one drainage area into another. Temporary lift stations in a lot of cases in
this City have turned into long term installations. I just don't think that we want to get
involved in that sort of thing. But no there, in answer to your question, there hasn't been
an alternative proposed.
Oslund: I guess I would just make one observation and hopefully I am not putting my foot
in my mouth because all I have read is the meeting minutes from last and any of the
material that has been provided. It seems to me that the developer's representative has
stated at least twice I believe that there is a verbal agreement with the owner to carry that
sanitary line with the Alleman's. And then we have this information here today presented
to the City on the 12th that indicates there is no verbal agreement that the discussions
have been very preliminary and that in fact the owner is not really interested in that. My
concern would be that apparently there is some confusion here and I am a little bit
confused about exactly how feasible it is for that sewer line. So that would be my concern
at this point.
Alidjani: I have a question for the developer Commissioner Hepper, or his representative.
My question is we have been going back and forth who knows from when, we almost lost
all of our memory regarding what has happened a year ago. What could you tell us to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 5
satisfy this Commission or at least me alone that we have something going. I talked to the
developer and you about 5 or 6 months ago outside. He indicated to me as our new
Commissioner indicated that there is some verbal agreement. Mr. Alleman's letter clearly
stated there is no agreement period.
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Alidjani it was our understanding from the
first of this because knowing the required location of the South Slough sewer trunk that
it would have to extend first through Chamberlain Estates No. 2 and then across the parcel
owned by Mr. Alleman. The developers spoke directly with Mr. Alleman back at the
beginning of this process. It was our understanding at that time that Mr. Alleman had
agreed to allow the sewer to cross that he had specified where he expected this crossing
to be and some parameters. For example it had be at least one lot depth south of the
South Slough so that he could back lots up onto that lot in the event that he ever
developed. Now whether or not he chooses to develop that is entirely up to him. But he
did specify to the developers to our developers at that time where he expected it and what
he had anticipated at that time. Our client went out and talked to Mr. Alleman again today
and I think that was probably part of what prompted the letter from Mr. Alleman that you
received today. There is discussion about preliminary engineering or doing the
engineering and planning for his particular piece of ground which basically an expense
that would be required to be paid upfront and we still have no guarantee or not assurance
that this project is even going to get off the ground. I think a lot of it has been based upon
specific requirements or perceived specific requirements that certain things be in place or
that you have to have in hand right now. Things in order for you to approve this subdivision
and I don't know that dissertation is what I was intending in the letter it was trying to come
to a clear understanding and to give you a basic idea of how things are done elsewhere.
First of all your City ordinance requires wet line sewers, we understand that. If you
approve this subdivision it would be conditioned upon obtaining wet line sewer and it
would have to be in the manner and fashion that is acceptable to the City Engineer in a
location that is planned by the City. We recognize that, so if you approved this as a
preliminary plat subject to a list of conditions of approval and this more or less a punch list
as I call it the map. You tell us how you want us to go about this, you give us that list of
conditions and then it is up to us to meet those conditions. Otherwise you don't have to
sign the plat, you are not obligated, your obligation, if we meet those conditions of
approval then the City more or less becomes obligated to sign that plat. But if for some
reason we cannot complete that list of conditions or approval there is no agreement, the
agreement is that you will not get the final plat. That is part of the frustration that we have
in this is that we understand what the process is, we have been doing this for a long time,
not only here but elsewhere. We are just asking that you give us the set of conditions that
will satisfy the City of Meridian that when we have satisfied those conditions of approval
that we will be able to get the final plat and at that point everything will be in place by the
time we are ready to sell any lots in that (inaudible).
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 6
Alidjani: Well, see I have a different opinion, I believe that they have given you those
conditions, I believe they have been giving you those conditions on Packard No. 1 for
example I know it was due not to the fault of the developer that Dove Meadows
Subdivision has lost their option on ground north of them. But understand the two different
issues, we have a set of rules that the sewer easement has to be there. At one time we all
assumed it was going to be there, now with this letter it is not going to be there. Those
conditions are there and according to my understanding 12 years being here is that we
should not annex and zone a subdivision until all those criteria is met already. And a
portion of it according to our staff and it is my understanding again it is not done.
Hutchinson: I can understand your position with no doubt but you also have to understand
that it seems that you are getting the cart before the horse. What we are asking for is your
approval so we can proceed with obtaining the exact easements that are required in the
exact locations that are required and the hose of other things. Now, typically you are given
that with the preliminary plat approval. What you do is you review your comprehensive
plan, you review the zoning ordinance, and does this comply, does this fit within what we
have in mind with the City of Meridian. If you meet this set of criteria and you have to
understand that you are asking the developer to, he is already making a big risk by
investing his money to propose the development. You are asking him to put up even more
money with absolutely no guarantee that you guys are going to approve it. Now you are
asking that before we even come into the public hearing that you have everything in hand.
That is an expense that most developers aren't willing to take the chance on because the
public hearing process doesn't guarantee any result even if you have done everything up
to that point. We can still run into some public opposition that would be convincing enough
to you that the project isn't appropriate. And in that case all of that work has been done
for nought. What we are saying is you make the decision whether or not it is appropriate
for that development and tell us exactly what, give us that list of things we are supposed
to do. We will meet those, if we can't meet them the project dies. It is pure and simple,
if we can't meet them you don't sign off, the project never gets recorded, the project dies.
It has a natural life within the confines of the ordinance. We recognize that is there, but
we think that you can give us the approval, the preliminary plat approval subject to a list
of conditions of approval which includes obtaining wet line sewer directly to the parcel so
that the sewer line will be extended to all of those lots within the development. It is a
reasonable request on our part. You're guaranteed that will be there otherwise the plat
just simply the project dies.
Oslund: Can I add something, the project dies, is it the case that the property is still
annexed into the City and the City would have to de-annex it?
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oslund, I believe you could make the
annexation subject to a development agreement or other contingencies that would in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 7
essence not annex the ground until the final plat is recorded. I know with zone changes
if we are already annexed ground and you had proposed a zone change with a plat a lot
of times you can withhold the final action of the City's approval not only of the subdivision
but of the zone change at the same time you can contingent the annexation upon the
approval of the final plat. At that time then all of the ground would be annexed, but at
least you would have the assurances because it is already going to be there with the
approval of the final plat that those things are in place at that time. So there wouldn't be
the requirement to de-annex. It is simply, with the final plat you would then annex, without
the final plat the ground is not annexed. There is no final action by the City Council until
they have done that.
Oslund: The concerns I expressed earlier obviously mine and I don't know if anyone else
shares those, but and I don't think that we should expect to see a final design for a sewer
or easements acquired or in the ground or anything like that. I think what would make me
feel more comfortable is if there was one option that seemed plausible or feasible and right
now we have one option that based on the appearances of the exhibit here is that it is not
feasible at all it seems pretty clear to me that if there were one other option that at least
seemed reasonable.
Hutchinson: I think you must also take into consideration the same property owner that
owns the piece that we are proposed to (inaudible) also owns the piece to the north which
is in the same position. What we are asking is that rf you grant us the approval then we will
go and work directly with Mr. Alleman to satisfy his concerns and satisfy his needs and still
be able to get a sewer trunk line which is important enough to the City of Meridian they
have identified the speck location for then we can work on that. If whatever it would take
to get Mr. Alleman and if that does not happen then there is no viability in the project, the
project will die because we cannot meet the first condition of approval of the provision of
wet line sewer.
Oslund: Don't you have to answer that question regardless, I mean if you are going to go
to the next step it seems to me you want the feasibility of the project and find out the sewer
lien that you have to (inaudible) twice as much as you can afford.
Hutchinson: Then there is that option that if the developer determines that after examining
all of the options and perhaps in the discussions with Mr. Alleman it might turn out to be
(inaudible) in another location. This is all strictly speculation because we are still at
preliminary stage. But if it turned out that he would prefer it on the north side of the ditch
rather than the south side of the ditch then we could work that out. If it turns out that it is
going to cost an amount of money that is going to make the project so it is not financially
viable to the developer the project will die anyway a natural death because it is not, it just
simply becomes not feasible. We are asking that you grant the approval so that we can
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 8
get on with that next step of securing these things that need to be done here.
Hepper: Mr. Hutchinson, I have a question, I am trying to think how the other developers
do it because other developers have to acquire easements and stuff and I think generally
that the way that they would probably do it is they would enter into an easement
agreement with the property owner conditioned upon approval of the City. They would
maybe, maybe there is a fee involved or something but that fee would not be paid unless
the city passed the project.
Hutchinson: There are several different options as far as approaching this.
Hepper: I am kind of reading that you are saying there is only one option and I am trying
to think how the other developers do it and I am wondering if maybe that wouldn't be
another option is to enter into an agreement with Mr. Alleman without the developer having
to put money up front but an agreement for whatever consideration he might want
conditioned upon approval of the City.
Hutchinson: I wasn't privy to the conversations that were held between the developer and
Mr. Alleman.
Hepper: If the City doesn't approve of it then the deal would be.
Hutchinson: I understand that.
Hepper: So apparently there are several different ways to handle this. Anyone else have
any questions?
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I think the word preliminary plat in our ordinance is kind of
confusing because it is not really a preliminary plat it is a final plat for recommendation to
the City Council as I understand it. Which means that all of these things need to be taken
care of before hand because it should be that the plat that comes before us should be the
same one that goes before the City Council is that right Mr. Attorney?
Crookston: It is preferable that they are the same. There have been in the past situations
where one plat comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission has
some suggested changes, the changes are made and then it goes to the Council. That
is really not a good procedure, what should happen is if there are changes made the plat
as changed should come back before Planning and Zoning Commission. The hard part
about the plat idea is that if the preliminary plat is approved let's say ultimately by the
Council then that is the plat that can be further developed and if there are things that the
City subsequently desires if the preliminary plat was approved the developer can say you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 9
have already approved it, it is the preliminary plat that controls on the plat. The thing,
however that is before the City on this particular application as it is in most of them that we
have recently done and within the last five or six years preliminary plats come in with the
annexation and zoning request. The City has the ability to set further requirements in the
process of the annexation. To me the first question you have to decide on is whether or
not you want this property annexed. If you think that you than you can condition or make
conditions on the plat. You can make conditions on the land as to what has to be required
or what the Council wants to be required. It is not my suggestion whatsoever to approve
of the plat without prior approval of annexation of the land.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that this section is a very complicated piece
of ground, it is probably one of the most complicated that we have dealt with due to lack
of accesses etc. These gentlemen have come up with what I feel is a good solution and
I am quite in favor of this project. Having said that due to the fact that there are so many
of these things that are not handled and taken care of at this time I move that we table
both items 2 and 3 until the next regularly scheduled meeting on January 9.
Alidjani: Second
Hepper: Moved and seconded.
Alidjani: Discussion, so then we come back here another month then the easement is not
done. I mean clearly
Shearer: They can't do anything with the property until the easement is done.
Alidjani: I understand that, but clearly we have a different interpretation of our ordinance
is saying regarding the zoning and annexation. Our ordinance says we do not have an
access we do not have an access for sewer, for water for everything else we need the
services we have to provide the reason is only annexation. It is just not there, that is the
way I understand it. We can't provide them with the sewer services and water services and
the rest of the services we might have to do that as a City they better not annex and zone
that piece of ground.
Shearer: That is why we are tabling that to give them the opportunity to do that stuff.
Alidjani: I guess what I am saying is and (inaudible) how many months do we have to be
patient and just wait and go back and forth?
Hepper: Okay we have a motion from Jim Shearer and a second from Moe Alidjani to table
items 2 and 3 until January 9 which is our next regularly schedule meeting, that is 1996,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 10
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY BOB NAHAS:
Johnson: We have a recent request by Mr. Nahas's representative to table this item until
January 9, 1996. We need a motion to that effect.
Shearer: I so move
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we table in accordance with the applicant's request item
#4 until January 9, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND
DIRK MARCUM:
Johnson: Are there any corrections, comments regarding the findings of fact that you have
in front of you? Entertain a motion for approval of the findings of fact as prepared by the
City Attorney.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council at this
time.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 11
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit requested
by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth
in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation as stated
onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION BY DENNIS AND
JANET BUTTERFIELD:
Johnson: Any comments or discussion or corrections to these findings of fact as prepared?
There is one typo that 1 would like to point out on page 3, first paragraph, nine lines down
or so, the work should be quite. Any other changes to these? Any discussion regarding
the findings of fact?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved by Commissioner Hepper, seconded by Commissioner Alidjani to approve
the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared. Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Abstain, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional use permit
requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Alidjani: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 12
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass a recommendation onto the City Council as read
by Commissioner Hepper, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Copies of these findings of fact now that they are approved will be available from
the City Clerk tomorrow.
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUTTE FENCE BY
ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY:
Johnson: Any discussion or comments regarding the findings of fact for Elliott Industrial
Company? If there are none I will entertain a motion please.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded then to approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call
vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a recommendation for the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Meridian recommend to the City Council that the property set forth in the application be
approved for annexation and zoning and the issuance of a conditional use permit under
the conditions set forth in the conclusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation onto the City as
stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 13
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN EDDY:
Johnson: Does anyone have any comments regarding these findings of fact? If there are
no comments then I will entertain a motion for approval please.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopt and and approve these findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a decision and recommendation you would like to pass onto the City
Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation
and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the applicant and
owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and the applicant
meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development time
requirements and entered into the required development agreement and meet the
conditions of the findings and conclusions of law. If the conditions are not met that the
property be de-annexed.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass the recommendation onto the City Council as
prepared by the City Attorney and read by Commissioner Hepper, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN
EDDY TABLED AT NOVEMBER 14, 1995 MEETING:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 14
(End of Tape)
The motion was made and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation for the
preliminary plat for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 6 by Tom Eddy.
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY
MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT:
Ensley: (Inaudible) As I say we have reviewed the comments of the City entities, the City
Engineer and the irrigation district and so forth and have no problem with any of the
requirements. So with that I am open to your questions.
Johnson: Thank you very much, what is the elimination there of manufactured home that
was going to be there, will that change your entry way at all, do you anticipate that
changing off of Cherry Lane?
Ensley: No, we will have two entrances off of Cherry Lane.
Johnson: So that will remain the same in the same locations?
Ensley: Well no, the easterly entrance will of course be down closer to the (inaudible).
Johnson: That was my question really, so that will free up more ground for additional
parking?
Ensley: Yes
Johnson: Initially you were there with maybe, with 68 usable or something
Ensley: Yes and this really opens up the project. Will will of course be fully landscaped
with buffers and fencing around the perimeter and a berm off of Cherry Lane to set it back.
Johnson: I would guess that would be a real plus for you to have that extra space there.
Any questions from the Commission?
Hepper: Would you address the perimeter fencing and landscaping, some sort of buffer
that you may have between the residential areas and this.
Ensley: Yes we definitely will be both with landscaping and fencing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 15
Hepper: What type of fencing?
Ensley: We haven't gotten to that, we haven't reached that decision as to what type it will
be an obscure fencing material and of course it will have to be very upscale to relate tot
he character of the building because it will be a custom building and it will certainly be
something that is going to be satisfactory to the adjoining property owners.
Johnson: I don't recall whether it was addressed, I assume that it was with the engineer's
comments. What type of lighting, he makes reference to it here in item #6, what type of
lighting do you plan or have you gotten that far?
Ensley: We haven't gotten that far.
Johnson: (Inaudible) and the direction and type of illumination, you haven't reached that
point.
Ensley: I haven't reached that point but it will certainly be taken, the location will be very
carefully considered because of the fact it is in a residential area.
Johnson: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Hepper: The traffic route that goes around the back of the building, is there a specific
direction that needs to be travelled on those lanes?
Ensley: (Inaudible) it is planned for a future bookmobile that won't be incorporated for
some time. The book mobile will come in and with a book mobile garage located on the
site. It will be of course clearly marked.
Johnson: Is your facility (inaudible) by any kind of drive up?
Ensley: No, not at this point.
Johnson: For dropping books off?
Ensley: Yes for dropping books off, yes. I thought you were talking about check at and
so forth. There will be book drop offs.
Johnson: That you can do from your car?
Ensley: Yes, it will be located in this area here.
s •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 16
Hepper: What would the hours of operation be do you have any idea?
Ensley: I would have to defer that to the librarian who is here with us. Would she have to
be sworn in?
Johnson: Not if she tells you and you tell us.
Ensley: 9:00 to 7:30 Monday thru Thursday, 9:00 to 6:00 on Friday and 10:00 to 5:00 on
Saturday.
Oslund: The entrance and exit there, the access to the street, those are both going to
provide ingress and egress for both of those, they aren't going to be one way in and out?
Ensley: No, they will be one way in and out right.
Oslund: The access to Cherry will?
Ensley: Right, you will come in and exit at that point.
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing is there
anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application.
Edna McDaniel, 1610 NW 13th Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
McDaniel: I am quite concerned as a property owner because we are the first adjacent
one off of Fairview Cherry Lane next to that. What is it going to do to the value of our
property and is it going to be a two story building. If so I would oppose because we bought
with the vision of the mountains and things and that would block it. Also, we have a fence
and I would expect the library or the City to maintain that fence of ours and all the other
property owners along there in the good class 1 A condition at all times. I am concerned
about the parking will the kids be over there loud after they leave the library. I know they
will be silent in the library as they exit what is the atmosphere going to be then. And the
lighting, we don't want any crude lighting that will intertere with residences ours and the
others along the way. We are adjacent right there and the fence divides and what was the
pasture where the horses was. This is what I am concerned about. Is it going to devalue
our property or what?
Johnson: Okay, is that all you have? Thank you very much?
McDaniel: One other, that tree that is there now is a home for Red Tail Hawks and it has
been there ever since we have lived here going on five years. I think it should be
o •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 17
maintained.
Johnson: Thank you, did 1 see another hand, yes sir.
Jon Powell, 2773 N Fieldstone Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Powell: I currently own a property that backs up, it is at 1670 NW 13th Avenue, that
actually would be backing up to this existing development. Actually I really have a few
questions and concerns and possibly the gentleman here tonight can answer them for me.
One of those was in regards to the buffer zone that was going to be between this said
development and the existing residences that are backed up there as far as how many feet
we are talking about on that buffer zone.
Johnson: You have to address the Commission and we will give the applicant an
opportunity respond after all the testimony.
Powell: Well, that would be my first question. Secondly I would have a concern as far as
the lighting on the project is concemed. But, I would say that overall if those two areas of
concern are met than I believe that it is beneficial and an asset to the community and is
something that would be going on record as being in favor of. Those are really two points
of concern that I do have. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else want to address the Planning & Zoning Commission at
this point on this application? Would the developer's representative, architect have any
comments at all to the questions raised by the two people that testified? You are not
required to it is just if you have some answers.
Ensley: To answer the question, it is a single level and we will be within the 35 foot
requirement for that particular zone. As 1 said before the fencing, we will be most happy
to work with the property owners and we want to make this to accommodate them also.
And the question about the buffer I believe there is about 7 feet between the driveway and
the property line. The fence and trees and landscape material in that buffer zone. I talked
about the lighting and we are going to be most sensitive to the lighting situation. Our
lighting engineer is very familiar with this type of project. I can't really answer the question
about the valuation of the property. A library is a real asset to a community but a realtor
would probably have to answer that question. The existing tree, we are going to try and
retain some of those existing trees there in the berm area out in front. I can't promise
exactly how many of them we will be able to save but there are some fine old trees there.
We are sensitive to that also I believe. Also of course the question about the kids, obvious
it is for young people and the schools are nearby and there will be young people there, we
have discussed that and the librarian and her staff are very concerned about that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 18
themselves and they will be monitoring it very carefully. Monitoring the driveway the
exterior because that will not be any benefit to them either to have it be a problem
situation. I think that addresses most of the issues. As I close I would like to, I trust that
you will look with favor on us we are anxious to get the construction documents done and
get out for an early bid opening.
Johnson: Thank you, before I close the public hearing does anyone have any further
comments?
McDaniel: The tree that I was referring to is a home for those Red Tail Hawks which is an
endangered species. I didn't know whether you were aware of that or not.
Alidjani: Is it just one tree or a whole bunch of trees.
McDaniel: It is the home of several birds but especially the Red Tail Hawks and they come
back here every year to nest. The traffic, is it going to exit next to us or enter? Is it going
to go clear around there and make a loop?
Johnson: The exit is on the east and the entrance is on the west side. (Inaudible) Can you
point that out?
(Discussion Inaudible)
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the developer's representative. I want to
make sure that you get plenty of exercise tonight. Just real quick, the roadway widths
going to and from the back of the property line, are you using the minimum width?
Ensley: I believe they are 22 feet.
Oslund: I guess what I am getting at is possibly if you were looking to get more buffer area
if that could be narrowed?
Ensley: It could be possibly narrowed.
Oslund: Also, in terms of, it sounds like there has been some concern raised about noise,
it is possible that the materials considered for the fence would include something that
would mitigate noise?
Ensley: Some kind of sound barrier, yes that is very possible.
Oslund: Thank you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 19
Johnson: Any further comments from the Commission? At this point I will close the public
hearing and ask you what you would like to do.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for item #10 request for rezone by Meridian Free Library District, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: For you Edna and others that may not know, the next step is like we handled
items tonight on 5, 6 and 7 the City Attorney prepares findings of fact which incorporates
your testimony and others and then we approve those or change them and amend them
whatever and then send them onto City Council. At that point there is another public
hearing at City Council. So you will have another opportunity after the findings of fact are
approved and once they are approved they are available to anybody that wants to come
down and pick them up at City Hall. That incorporates what we have said here tonight. So
your testimony will be a matter of record. I just wanted you to know that.
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES
PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicants
representative to come forward and address the Commission.
Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman I wonder if perhaps the order of this might first be the conditional
use permit consideration which would real-y be #12 because the conditional use permit
is probably pre-requisite to the preliminary plat approval.
Johnson: I think that is a good recommendation I dully note that as well. We will now they
address item #12 on the public hearing and I will open that public hearing and item #11
will follow.
Wardle: If you will give me a moment to take a whole bunch of exhibits out of a box.
~ !
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 20
Crookston: Just for the record you are still sworn for this application as you were on
number 11.
Wardle: I understand that Mr. Attorney. It has been one year short just a few days since
the City Council approved the Ashford Greens PUD project. I have a summary of that
information and a response to, I have received two staff comments, one from Bruce
Freckleton the City Engineer's office to whom we have responded in writing by a hand
passed document to Mr. Smith this evening and also to Shari Stiles that was handed to Mr.
Rabbit this evening. I would like to present to the Commission members now a packet that
includes some reduction of items that we will be looking at. As noted on December 20,
1994 the Meridian City Council did approve a conditional use permit for Ashford Greens.
The project was approved with a total of 438 dwelling units. The break down of those units
is in a small matrix just below the first paragraph where it says as approved 222 single
family lots, 216 conceptually approved parcels or units in 2 medium density parcels as
shown on this particular site plan. This is the item that was presented at those hearings
a year ago. There have been a few modifications in the final platting that has taken place
subsequently but the parcel that we are dealing with this evening is just south of the main
collector roadway that goes through the center of the project into what will become the
new clubhouse area of the golf course in the future. The other medium density parcels
lying further southeasterly has not yet been subjected to any detail planning or
architectural work. This particular subject parcel had been approved for 116 units at a
maximum density of 8 units per acre. Again that was conceptual. In reality the proposal
that we are presenting this evening is for 74 units instead of 116 which leaving the other
medium density parcel as projected until a future plan is projected. In reality reduces the
overall density of the project from the approved 438 now to 396. Thus the gross density
of the project excluding the acreage that had been previously dedicated to the City by Mr.
Fuller but inclusive of property that was to be dedicated by the Brighton Corporation for
the remainder of the golf course reduces the density of the project from the 3.55 of a year
ago down to approximately 3.2. The density is noted on the proposal where we are talking
about 74 detached single family dwellings on 15.18 acres is actually a density of 4.9 units
per acre within that area. Again, far short of the conceptual 8 units that had been
considered. I would like now to put on the easel a drawing of the site plan. I wish the light
was a little bit better there Mr. Chairman. For the moment, this is an illustrative site plan,
I will go to a more detailed plan in a moment and it is also in a reduction form in your
packet. This shows the relationship of the detached units. Again these are detached
single family units but in a cluster format where there is common area. There is a unique
roadway system and a relationship of those units to each other. Wherein the actual living
space orientation of the dwellings is to the rear and to the side. In the information
presented by the architect on the project and I don't know if you have been given anything
that was originally submitted in the application or not but there was a brief statement by
the architect talking about the concept of the zero lot line configuration of the style of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 21
home that was designed. In that particular configuration there is an easement, a use
easement granted from one parcel to another so that in reality the open space between
the buildings becomes the living and use area of an individual yard for one of the two
residents. It moves from building to building so that each has instead of 5 foot sideyards
they have essentially 10 feet more depending on which unit goes in on each lot. It
becomes their use area. In addition the way the buildings and the open space work there
is literally every rear and side yard living area has vision access to common area. Either
common area internally or and this is not common area in the sense of a homeowner
ownership but the visual open space of the golf course which actually surrounds this
parcel on three sides. There is also on the technical site plan presented by the architect
which architectural firm by the way has been involved in cluster home projects in the river
run area of Boise and many such projects throughout the country. They have identified
and have presented in that slight reduction as well a graphic that shows how those yards
and that open space works from building to building. Again to illustrate there is a fence
line shown that is an extension of the side of the building and the use area for this parcel
for instance would be inclusive of that sideyard area between those two buildings as well
as the area behind. Some of the units are accessible by private driveways that will be
platted lots that will provide perpetual ingress, egress access for several of those parcels.
In fact I believe I counted 23 of the 74 have their access and frontage via such a private
drive situation. And even in the case where some of the lots actually have frontage they
could take their access from that private drive. That would be an option available to the
individual siting of those units. That is, this particular graphic is a blow up of this area.
In Shari Stiles' memo of December 8 she did address the fact that the Commission through
the Planned Development process section 9-607 E of the subdivision and development
ordinance has the authority to recommend exceptions to standards of the ordinance. In this
particular case she specifically talked about minimum lot sizes and the minimum lot size
proposed in this cluster configuration is 4600 square feet. Lot frontages in many cases the
lots have full frontage on a public right of way but in some cases they have a reduced
frontage and others their actual frontage comes through that private lot that would provide
their access. That again is an exception that would come through the planned
development process. In addition the Commission can speak to roadway widths, what
have been proposed are streets that would be constructed to ACHD standards at a 29 foot
back to back section which is their standard with a detached meandering sidewalk on one
side only. Typically there are a few places along that roadway where there are double
sidewalk but it is a meandering way and that would be largely through the real core where
the open space is bunched at the center of the project in the vicinity of what will become
some type of a recreational facility. A structure that has been proposed that would be
proposed that has not yet been detailed. The question really comes up with respect to
ACHD standards is that the right of way proposed for the main loop road is only 45 feet in
comparison to ACHD's 50 foot section. ACHD has not yet had the opportunity to review
this application. They indicated to me since we had anticipated that they would have seen
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 22
this but they had not been able to get this scheduled into their technical review schedule
as yet. So just to clarify we are talking about ACRD standard street section in terms of
width of the improvements, sidewalk on one side generally and a narrower right of way for
the loop street. The other streets do conforrn to their 42 foot right of way section. So those
issues will have to be addressed with the Commission. Now I did not in Mr. Freckleton's
comments that there was concem about Fire Department and School bus access. We met
with Fire Chief Bowers some five or six weeks ago to discuss the issues and he had
similar concerns about the enforceability of parking concerns because under ACHD policy
and guidelines there would be an allowance of parking on one side only of any of the
streets within this project. And so this is not abnormal it is the same situation that would
be faced in any project that has that particular street standard and they deal with it in
several ways. One would be signage on the part of ACRD to identify no parking on one
side of the street. They would identify which side that would be. The second is something
that Boise City has started to do recently as a means of really bringing that to the public
attention and that is in some cases that are now requiring a red striped paint on the side
that is no parking, that red stripe on the curb itself. I don't know if that is something the
City of Meridian would be interested in doing or not. It is one of the potential enforcement
provisions that could be used to address those concerns. Shari also addressed the fact
that the Commission must spec~cally accept the private drive and the facts that there are
lots not fronting on a right of way. In my notes I indicate that 23 of those do not have
roadway frontage but they are accessible by those plated private driveway lots. Parking
areas, each of the units will have a 2 car garage with a standard 2 car driveway. In
addition to that there is guest parking provided throughout the project and number of
locations. They vary on some of the cul-de-sacs in a few pods one on the main loop
street, two in the parking islands over here. So those additional spaces simply augment
the two garage spaces and the two driveway spaces that would be provided on each
parcel. Shari also discussed ditches remaining open and I suspect she was concerned
about what was shown on the illustrative plan. I have to first state that there is one
irrigation ditch that barely clips the northerly part of this project that will be tiled. That is a
conveyance facility that will be tiled and no encumbrance made as a result of this project.
What has been shown through the central core and in this particular area as waterway is
really a dry creek bed that would become part of the on site drainage system and feed into
the lakes that are surrounding this particular property on the south and the westerly side.
A drainage plan has not yet been engineered but the concept is not for live water. It is
simply a landscape amenity feature that becomes part of the common area accompanied
by a pathway that leads from the sidewalk along the main boulevard down to a recreation
center and on into the rest of the project. With respect to 5 foot sidewalks, the sidewalks
will be provided but not in necessarily both sides of each street as identified on the site
plan. And then with respect to setbacks. Again the Commission can vary the standards
through that citation and the standards have been identified but on the plans provided both
in the conditional use application did provide blue line prints with the standards on it. They
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 23
are also on that small reduction which may or may not be readable to you. But they are
not dramatically different do take into account however the zero lot line sideyard use and
enjoyment easement they still stick with the general standards for street setbacks and
other areas and there is no congestion as a result of the orientation of the units as
designed. There is one other item that is of concern that Shari has specifically addressed
that I don't necessarily that the interpretation is correct. That relates to the specific size of
the buildings within the PUD remember that this is an R-4 zone and a standard R-4 zoned
project would have a minimum 1400 square foot housing minimum. As we read the
provision that Shari has sited this ordinance does state that the approval of the final
development plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations
governing use, density, area, bulk. According to the zoning ordinance provision, bulk is
defined as dealing with this size of dwellings. We believe that since there is only one of
the five floor plans that potentially would provide that option that the Commission can
through its recommendation of the City Council express its feelings and we would hope
those feelings are that one of the units could have a smaller than 1400 square foot
character. I would like to go through briefly what these floor plans are. I do have just one
copy that you can look at up close of the elevations (inaudible) (End of Tape). The
character of the dwellings is very consistent with what the standard single family character
of the project whether it is within Ashford Greens the regular single family lots or even the
adjacent Cherry Lane Development the various other subdivisions that have been
developed in that vicinity. The configuration of these are preliminary elevations provided
by Downing, Thorpe and James the architect. It shows a very standard appearance lap
siting in this case I would guess they are shake roofs because we are talking about a
smaller more compact but a very well done unit. The possibility of varying the front street
scape by either side entry or front entry garages and that option can be site specific. And
specific option when an individual buys those units. The smallest of the units as noted is
a 1225 square foot single story building. We will, we are going to box these Mr. Chairman
and we will leave these here and through the process and hope that maybe we can use
these for marketing purposes once the City Council has addressed them, but we can also
have photo reductions or copies made for the file because these would be very hard to fold
and put into a permanent storage situation. Anyway the single story 1225 square foot
configuration actually comes in two variations, a two bedroom unit with a den, in other
words a 3 bedroom possibility or an extended master suite and a den which would become
essentially a 2 bedroom unit. There would certainly be in the potential market of
purchasers a desire for a building of this size. This is not tiny, it just happens to be a
compact but a very nicely done unit. The second building plan two is a 1425 square foot
again a single story building that has also a 3 bedroom or a two bedroom and den
configuration. There are options that certainly could be done by the individual buyer of
choice. Plan three is a 1640 square foot two story and again if you want to look at these
closely I would certainly be willing to provide them to you, but I think the size and
orientation is the appropriate information. Building plan 4 has several different variations
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 24
depending on whether a sun room option is included or not. It would range from 1721 to
1836 square feet depending on that option but it is again a 2 story building. Not full two
story it is a partial two story with two bedrooms upstairs. Then plan number 5 is an 1881
square foot building that has a little bit deeper upper area with the three bedrooms upstairs
and a combination family room/den downstairs. So primarily living area downstairs,
sleeping accommodations up. With respect to the information that we have seen from staff
Mr. Chairman we believe that the Commission does have the authority to grant the
exceptions that would be involved in this planned development. Again I want to stress the
fact that this does not stand on its own in terms of the overall density because the 4.9 units
to the acre was originally considered in the' overall project and for a density of up to 8 units
to the acre. All of the other exceptions that have been noted we believe the Commission
has the authority to recommend to the Council in the annotated comments that have gone
back to Shari we have addressed some of the other elements with respect to the
architectural features. The fact that the landscape plan shown is conceptual only at this
point, a detailed landscape plan would be submitted to the City for staff review and
approval. Garbage areas would be individual homeowner because they are individual
single family detached dwellings. The project actually will be re-named and the
information that we provided indicates that the name James Place was denied by the
County Engineer and so we will simply identify this project in all future correspondence
and all subsequent approvals or plat submissions as Ashford Greens No. 2. Mr.
Chairman, that is a lot of information I would be happy to respond to your questions, you
may have some questions also of Mr. Turnbull who is here who is the developer.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Wardle, any questions of the applicant's representative Mr.
Wardle?
Alidjani: 1 have one question, what is the percentage of plan number 1 versus plan number
5 and 4 and 2 regarding the square footage, they have (inaudible).
Wardle: The square footages are identified here.
Johnson: You addressed that in your next paragraph, he wanted to know in accordance
with our ordinances how many in 1 and what percent would that be at the total build out.
I believe you have answered that in your next paragraph.
Wardle: In reality Mr. Chairman, since all but one of these units is larger than the
ordinance requirements the percentage factor I don't think is relevant anyway. We don't
know yet what the individuals will purchase when they make their selection of the unit for
each individual lot. It may be that they will all be larger, could be that there will be a
substantial number of smaller units for the older empty nesters. That is why that we
believe it is critical that the Commission through its recommendation to the Council provide
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 25
that option. Mr. Alidjani have we given you enough information?
Alidjani: Well actually I didn't get the answer I would have liked to hear but I guess what
it is, what I am worrying about is all of the sudden all 74 lots is going to have 1225 square
feet of building then what because they have a choice to build minimum or a choice to
build maximum and a choice to build in between. The way it has been written and the way
if we approve it that way they can go all minimum they can go mixed or whatever.
Wardle: Correct, and what Mr. Alidjani the result would be is still the same basic character
of a project but you would have probably a little bit more open area because the foot print
is a little bit smaller than some of the larger units. So, you are talking about a specialty
type lifestyle area within a larger PUD. The emphasis frankly is toward either the
retirement or the empty nester or the young professional perhaps with no children. Not
that they couldn't have children if they opted to do so. It does afford a different lifestyle
because the exterior areas common areas would all be maintained in contrast to having
to go out and deal with your own yard the entire area.
Alidjani: I understand that lifestyle real well, I live all alone.
Wardle: It can be good and it can be bad.
Oslund: I have a question, in terms of the fencing on your details there you showed some
fencing scheme for each of those lots, and I don't know if I am reading this correctly the
way I understand it is you will have fencing at the rear of the yard is that true?
Wardle: There is the option and I am going to have Mr. Turnbull address that specifically
because I believe that there would be the provisions if they are chosen to be fenced. But
I have done projects of a simpler nature before where a lot of the units did not fence the
entire yard areas, they fenced a privacy area around patios but opted not to take the view
of in this particular case some quality open space internally and externally golf course. I
think if you go around the golf course now it has been a while since I have been there but
my recollection is that most all of the adjacent properties are not solid fenced. This is
identifying the possibility that it could.
Oslund: I guess that is what I am getting at that when you look at the illustrative below, at
least from here I don't see the fences, it really is, it looks, it is a nice appearance that it has
that appearance but 'rf there is nothing for instance in the covenants that would restrict the
kind of fencing then you may not have a new concept at all. It seems to me that one of the
big advantages is the openness and somehow you don't control that they could all close
in conceivably and you would lose one of the benefits that you are trying to build into this
it looks like.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 26
Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund, I appreciate that and I think perhaps it is something
that the developer needs to take into consideration. Again the very nature of the use of the
sideyard gives the potential for the privacy area essentially between the buildings versus
having all of that at the rear. I haven't studied the units I wanted to look and see, well, we
would have to look at a more detailed layout. I think with that possibility where if they really
want to sit on a patio and have something that they are not going to be seen and bothered
by people either on the golf course or common area that is the area between the buildings
whereas the rear hopefully I agree is it much more desirable to have the vision unimpaired
along those open space corridors.
Oslund: You suggested earlier about the smaller privacy areas that you have seen, I think
something like that would be really nice in a situation like this. I don't want to tell you how
to design your project, it is not the intent at all I guess I am just expressing a concern that
there must be someway to control the fencing. I would just be afraid that people would
come in like they do everyplace else.
Wardle: I appreciate the comment because it is something that we do need to keep in mind
when the covenants are actually prepared and presented.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle?
Hepper: No, I just had a comment on the smaller house sizes too along Moe's line of
thinking. I think typically given the option that when we have a minimum allowed standard
of some sort that typically the majority of the plans or things are built to the minimum even
though there is an option to go higher it seems like that is always the way it works out.
Subdivisions out here of 1400 square foot minimums and typically every house in the
subdivision is between 1400 and 1500 square feet unless the restrictive covenants for the
subdivision call for something higher. If you have 1500 square feet minimum you are
going to end up with houses between 1500 and 1600 square feet. You are not going to
end up with 2000 or 2100 square foot houses. It just seems like when the lower standard
is available that is the way most people go. My concern is the same as Moe's that the
majority of the homes in there would end up at the 1200 square feet and that is a big
concern of mine where you have 5 different plans I would feel a lot more comfortable if
perhaps there was a percentage at least on the plan 1 the 1200 square feet that no more
than perhaps 20% could be 1200 square feet and then that would give us some assurance
that we are not going to end up with 60 or 70% that are 1200 square feet. I don't know
if that is a marketing feasibility or what but I know that is a pretty big concern of ours.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hepper, maybe Mr. Turnbull will address that when he gets
up. Let me just make one comment, much of what you addressed with respect to the
minimum size of the units will occur generally in terms of trying to, the affordabilty factor.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 27
So they will go minimum through these standard subdivisions essentially to keep the price
of the units down. This is going to be a little bit different, I am not at all suggesting that
there won't be the tendency because in reality most of these units are purchased by a
couple and they have no children at home then they probably aren't going to put more than
they want. Generally these people are going to have the resources to put whatever they
feel is comfortable for their lifestyle. A lot of people even without children have some pretty
comfortable and pretty nice houses. So, it may well be that a percentage I am not certain
if 20°h is the right number that would be approximately 15 of the units. I don't know what
the number should be, but it is certainly a consideration that may well be expressed to the
Council. David do you want to defend any of your (inaudible).
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle before we swear in Mr. Turnbull?
Oslund: I had one other technical question. Any thought given to mailboxes and their
location whether they are going to be clustered or single or up the street?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund, not specifically. They would be at the street of
course and I think under at least the way ACHD likes to deal with it you do a cluster of at
least two and in the case of each of these private drive areas those would all be clustered
at the street entrance so there would be no need for mail delivery internally. So there will
be some type of clustering but we specifically have not addressed that.
Oslund: My only concern is when you take a mail box and combine it with our 5 foot
minimum sidewalk width when it is right adjacent to the roadway and curb and gutter is
that in effect we end up with a 3 foot walk.
Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oslund what will happen in this case is the sidewalk
in only a couple of instances is actually adjacent to the curb and gutter, in most cases it
is detached and meandering somewhat. So access to those would not impede sidewalk
usage.
Oslund: Thank you
Wardle: Thank you very much.
David Turnbull, 12301 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Oslund you brought up a good point about
fencing and we do intend to have a fencing standard, a common fencing standard
throughout the project. We have in fact instituted that in a project that we have in Boise
City on a park and basically what we have done on any fencing that is abutting a common
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 28
area such as park or green belts going to the park the fencing has been limited to provide
for some open vision. Now, I would be a little more restrictive in this project simply
because, I can give you an example in the Hobble Creek project which is adjacent to a
Boise City park, the fencing standard on the park is either a 4 foot or 6 foot high rod iron
fence which has full vision or a 4 foot high cedar fence so that you can see over the fence.
Or in the event that they want something a little more secure we have gone with a 6 foot
high cedar fence but it essentially has every third bat in the fence missing or only every
third, two out of every 3 bats is missing, so there is an open vision panel the top two feet
of the fence. We allowed that simply because in parks it is more of a security issue and
some parents are concerned about hoodlums vaulting their fence and taking their kids and
we don't have that concern I don't think in this neighborhood. So what I would be
proposing is anything on the golf course be limited to a 4 foot high fence and we could
probably allow the rod iron or the solid cedar fence. One thing I actually like about a cedar
fence and we don't allow the dog eared type fence where it is jagged on the top of the
fence, we actually have what is a two sided fence that appears the same on one side as
it does on the other. there is a 6 inch band across the top and a 4 inch band across the
bottom so it is a more expensive fence. We also require a common color finish so it has
some uniformity in appearance. We would be proposing a four foot high maximum on the
golf course. We would propose six foot high fences to maintain privacy around patio areas
but back off of the external border of the property. So your point is well taken and we had
considered that issue and that is what we plan to do. As for the house plans in general,
as Mr. Wardle mentioned, I actually a year ago January went to Houston to go the the
national home builders show spec~cally to find an architect, land planning design firm that
specialize in this kind of project. The architect we found is out of Boulder, Colorado, they
did the project at River Run in Boise. It was just by chance that I was flipping through their
portfolio with them and saw that and was fairly impressed with that. They projects all over
the country, they do golf course communities and they are known for their expertise in this
field. What we have here despite what size we talk about whether it is 1225 square feet
or 1800 or 1900 square feet these are high amenity homes. I understand what the
Commissions concern is in general in Meridian is the entry level home market saturated
with that type of market. We are not talking here about homes however that are going to
be priced out in the $75 a square foot price range, these are high amenity homes they
have a lot of flare particularly. Inside and out, a lot of vaulted ceilings, and they are
probably although I haven't had any final working drawings prepared yet obviously
because we don't have the project through the Commission nor the City Council yet. Our
supposition is these homes are going to be more in the neighborhood of $100 per square
foot. they are not your typical entry level homes. Hopefully that alleviates some of the
concerns that the Commission may have. This obviously is a high amenity project and we
intend to build it in a first class manner. Is there another question I needed to address?
Johnson: No, I don't think so, the only other question I recall is the mail box question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 29
Turnbull: We don't have a final clustering plan but there would be some clustering involved
in this. As Mr. Wardle noted most of the sidewalk is detached and that really works well.
In fact we have done that in other projects where we had a standard five foot parkway strip
between the curb and the sidewalk and it sure helps particularly in a family neighborhood
where you have kids bicycling up and down, they don't have to be dodging mail box posts
and also you tend to keep people from parking up over the rolled curb with their cars on
top of the sidewalk. They stay off grass but they won't stay off sidewalks when the
sidewalk is attached.
Johnson: Anything else? Anyone else from the public, since you are here Malcolm did you
come to listen? Is there anyone else behind this easel I can't see? Any other discussion
before 1 close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing at this time on item #12.
This is a conditional use permit it would require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES
PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Johnson: At this point I will open the public hearing and once again invite the applicant's
representative Mr. Wardle to address the Commission, you need to be sworn again.
Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I won't add anything except that we did provide at the same time
along with these architectural drawings for the conditional use a preliminary plat that is
almost a carbon copy except is does detail the standard elements of a preliminary plat and
I trust that drawing was also provided in your packets. Unless there are any other specific
or different questions 1 would not go further.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? Thank you Mike, is there anyone else that
would like to address the Commission? I will close the public hearing at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 30
Alidjani: I have a question of Gary. Mr. Smith, according to Mr. Wardle ACHD did not have
a chance at the present time to take a look at this project with the conditions and so on and
so forth that we have discussed tonight. I guess to question from you is do you have a
problem with the preliminary plat that has been presented to us number one. Two, with
your experience with ACRD what kind of trouble we can foresee or we can look at.
Smith: Commissioner Alidjani, our comments were outlined, Bruce Freckleton outlined our
comments to you. The applicant has responded to those comments in writing as we
requested and I don't see any problem with that, with their response to what our review
comments were. As far as the Highway District I really don't know, I don't have a feeling.
Johnson: That might be an opportune time to ask if they have had any discussions with
ACHD up to this point.
Shearer: Jim, we don't want to approve this until we (inaudible) conditional use permit.
Johnson: I understand it needs to be tabled, I am trying to gather some more information
for Wayne.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, was that a question directed to me?
Johnson: Yes Mr. Wardle, have you had any discussions with ACRD that might help to
answer at least partially Mr. Alidjani's question?
Wardle: Yes Mr. Chairman, we did have an informal meeting with the traffic planners at
ACHD. It was not subjected to their technical review process because no application had
actually been filed with the City of Meridian at that time. What they were looking at was
the fact even though it is a narrower roadway than typically they would probably look at
the way the project actually divides itself they were willing to consider the narrower
roadway because there are two ways in and out and you are not concentrating all of the
traffic in one location. So, it was not a clear cut, not necessarily in total compliance with
their normal standards but it was not something that they rejected outright in their
preliminary look. So it will have to go through that process.
Johnson: Thank you, I think any motion we make should leave it open or conditioned on
ACHD's comments so that we are able to incorporate those.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. Can you tell me who you were
talking with at ACHD?
Wardle: Dave Schplitz
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 31
Oslund: And that was pretty recently?
Wardle: It was about the same day that I spoke, let me look at my planner because I have
the day that we met with the City in pre-application discussion and subsequently with Fire
Chief Bowers was in that same time frame. It was before the application was submitted
and that application date it was November, it was in late October I am going to guess I am
not going to take the time to look it up. One of the aspects that ACHD tends to look at is
a narrower roadway that doesn't have the constriction of placing all of the traffic in one
location tends to provide a calming influence. It might preclude speed bumps in the future
because it does actually slow traffic down. The narrower the street the slower the traffic.
Oslund: Any parking on loop street?
Wardle: Parking on one side only of any of these streets under ACHD standards.
Hepper: Are there sidewalks on the cul-de-sac streets on one side or just on the loop
street?
Wardle: The only sidewalk Mr. Hepper is one short segment here and a piece that
connects to that internal circulation system up here. So nothing in this area and of course
this is a very short segment, nothing shown on those.
Johnson: Anyone else have any other questions? At this time I will close the public
hearing on the preliminary plat.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until the conditional use permit is brought
back before us which should be the 9th of January.
Johnson: Tabled to a date certain January 9, 1996, I am looking for a second to that.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table this item until January 9, 1996, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Dces anyone else have anything they want to bring up this evening. I appreciate
your contributions tonight Greg and it is good to have you aboard. I will entertain a motion
for adjournment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1995
Page 32
Oslund: I move we adjourn.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: All in favor of adjournment? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:38 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
JOH ,CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
` - 1.
WILLIAM G. BERG. JR.. I CLERK
~ ~e ME~IAN PLANNING &ZONING CON~SSION ~s~
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
%ftszn/~f fz C'/r<vc%~ boa n !r~z , .1h 1ro<~~ c f~mT - o ~ G. F~ L!r/<< •, ~C
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1995:
~Pio~z~~~t~~
1. TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMII,T FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
/7z~~C GLn-ri .~. ~~nu aRo lax /l~/ef ~+~~-..
2. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
~~
3. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNElEDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
-~ZC ~ 6tiz-fi Z ~TtLn ~ G/ ~ /?4f~,
4. TABLED NOVEMBER 14, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY BOB NAHAS:
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN
HOWELL/AND DIRK MARCUM: p/O~r~~r~ {/~€~c/~
aLl(G'm.7A~'o~Z~bei= /'YxCClnme:idLZf/an. r^7 C'~C
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION BY
DENNIS ~ JANET BUTTERRELD: =?P~rr- ~ ~ ~// ~` t°1c
~'JCClf Oh {'L Cohn n-1~n.CC~~b-~.~ tU C~/~
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BUdTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT NDUSTRIAL COMPANY: u~~i-o~ ~%F
a7 L~L pdt~' ~n ~-.PC~irnrw~.-i~uh~._ fr, L'/C.
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDVISION N0.6 BY
JOHN EDDY: (d p~J i ~~~~ ~%{ ~ r. %r.
Fnli SI fiYx i'~ c~b-rx,~yr~>-,~aLf~v,._. ~~ [~~C~
9. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDVISION N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY
TABLED AT NOVEMBER 14,1995 MEETING: ~rPp~ ~ vt /i ~~'. ~~'~
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY
MERIDIAN FREE LIBRARY DISTRICT p/r/
ni czltG-lne {z ~+-~~wrz t~ fly ~~c"'/L
11. PUBLIC HEARING: RI~QUEST FORA PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JAMES
PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDMSION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
fa~ll~c~~fi1 ~7ti.,yn ~~,
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 74
UNIT PUD FOR JAMES PLACE AT ASHFORD SUBDVISION BY
~ BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ~
~ ~ ~~~y aLttrrn~~ ~~re~ave ~~~ ~~~lli ~k ~
RECEIVED
DEC 1 2 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY OF MERIDIA
PUB~C MEETING SIGN- HEET
NAME PHONE NUMBER
f~`ZZS6
~ rat .~ ~Or~
~~~-~/i
a s
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE
A PORTION OF LOT 6, PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION
WEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on November 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing in person, and having duly considered the matter, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for November 14, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at November 14, 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.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 1
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately one (1) acre in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-T
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property
be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and has
requested a conditional use permit to allow a commercial wholesale
and retail sales of vinyl products, primarily fencing.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
primarily commercial; that the property to the north is being
developed by AVEST PLAZA for the Fred Meyer shopping center; that
the land to the west is zoned commercial.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits; that the property surrounding this lot is in Meridian.
6. That Elliott Industrial Company, an Idaho Corporation, is
the owner of the property and is the Applicant; that it has
requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the
application is not at the request of the City of Meridian.
7. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application
stated that the present use of the land is residential with shops
until November 1, 1995; that the proposed use is for a commercial
wholesale and retail sale business of vinyl products, primarily
fencing under the name of BUTTE FENCE; that the land is presently
zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional (RT).
8. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 2
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian;
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.
9. That the property could be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
10. 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.
11. That the Applicants representative, Chuck Elliott,
testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing that the development
would be a vinyl fencing and decking company, wholesale and retail;
that in reference to the staff comment item #1 from the Assistant
to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, the legal description is
being redone by Pinnacle Engineering; that the handicapped parking
stall will be located closer to the building entrance with proper
marking and that the Ada County Highway District's recommendation
or suggestion, regarding some cross street ties, will be
coordinated into the landscape plan.
12. That the Meridian Police Department, Fire Department,
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian
Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments; that those
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
SUTTE FENCE PAGE - 3
comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth
in full.
13. That Bruce Freckleton, the Assistant to the City Engineer
commented that a legal description shall be submitted for the
proposed site and shall include all those portions of adjacent
public rights-of-way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the
City of Meridian and 1/2 of all other adjacent public right-of-
ways, and shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed
by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all the provisions of
the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158; that water service is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that
any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property
shall be tiled; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that a drainage
plan designed by an architect or an engineer shall be submitted for
all off-street parking areas; that outside lighting shall be
designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby
residences; that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian
City Ordinances; that off-street parking, paving and stripping, a
drainage plan, sidewalks, and signage shall all be provided in
accordance with City Ordinances; that the paving and striping shall
be in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; that
information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water
FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 4
requirements for the proposed site is critical for determining the
water serviceability and needs to be provided to the Public Works
Department; that the City of Meridian owns and maintains an
existing sanitary sewer main along the north side of Fairview
Avenue to the intersection of Dixie Lane where the main turns north
up Dixie Lane; that the center of the proposed Butte Fence site is
approximately 200 feet east of the manhole in Dixie Lane and that
City Ordinance requires uae of the Municipal Sewer System when a
property is within 300 feet of a City main; that assessment fees
for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan
review process; that Late Comers fees will also be charged on
installing the water and sewer mains to help reimburse the parties
responsible for installing them.
14. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that a minimum landscape setback of 35 foot from required
ACRD right-of-way will be provided; that all outdoor storage of
equipment and materials shall be screened from view from any
existing adjoining residence or residentially zoned area and not
located in any front yard setback area; that the display area shall
be uncluttered; that all off-street parking areas and all ditches
be tiled per City Ordinance; that the lighting shall not cause
glare or adverse impact to residential properties or traffic on
Fairview Avenue; that a development agreement shall be required as
a condition of annexation; that a Certificate of Occupancy is
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 5
required prior to opening for business and that the location of the
handicapped parking stall be adjacent to the building.
15. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments
and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the
Applicant dedicate 54 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of
Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel prior to issuance of a building
permit; that one driveway from Fairview Avenue is approved and
shall be aligned with the existing driveway for a church on the
north side of Fairview Avenue; that this would require shifting the
driveway to the east; that the Applicant be required to provide
cross access easements to the parcels abutting the site's east and
west boundaries; that paving the driveway its full required width
of 30 feet for at least 30 feet beyond the edge of pavement of
Fairview Avenue and install pavement tapers with 15 foot radii
abutting the existing roadway edge is required and copies of the
recorded access easements shall be provided to the District prior
to the issuance of building permits.
16. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 6
B. Under LAND USE
5. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 28
Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue
Plus Area North of Fairview Avenue.
These areas are within Ada County, but nearly surrounded
by the City of Meridian. The area is characterized by
large rural lots, and a sparse development pattern. Zn
order to stimulate planned development in these areas,
the following policies apply:
a. 5.16U All development requests will be subject
to development review and conditional use permit
processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
b. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned and
compatible land urea are desirable for this area,
including low-to-high density residential, office,
light industrial and commercial land uses.
c. 5.18U Existing residential properties will be
protected from incompatible land use development in
this area. Screening and buffers will be
incorporated into all development requests in this
area.
C. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 71
1. Entryway Corridors
2. Fairview Avenue (East entrance).
3. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
3. Policies, Page 71
a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business development on entrance corridors.
b. 4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
SUTTE FENCE PAGE - 7
4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 72
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses,
and require effective buffers and mitigation
measures through conditional use permits when
appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed.
17. 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.
13. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive
Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
18. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that
is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
19. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
jC-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.
FINDINO3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 8
20. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning
districts of the City; that individual department stores, retail
stores, restaurants, and wholesale facilities, are allowed uses in
the C-G district; that planned commercial developments, are an
allowed use in the C-G district.
21. 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."
22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 9
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population, and the housing for that population, does not
sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing
fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and
recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in
population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for
school services to current and future students.
23. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the
City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety
of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
25. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 10
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
26. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
27. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within
new developments as part of the public right of way or as
separate easements so that an alternate transportation system
(which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be
provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments."
28. As stated above in Paragraph 3, the Applicant submitted
an application on a conditional use to allow commercial wholesale
and retail sales of vinyl products, primarily fencing; that such
material on the conditional use is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant did not
specifically address the conditional use for the wholesale/retail
business at the public hearing; that as found above, the Planning
Director stated that the Applicant needs to provide a minimum
landscape setback of 35 foot from the required ACRD right-of-way;
that all outdoor storage of equipment and materials shall be
screened from view from any existing adjoining residence or
residentially zoned area and not located in any front yard setback
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 11
area; that the display area shall be uncluttered; that all off-
street parking areas and all ditches be tiled per City Ordinance;
that the lighting shall not cause glare or adverse impact to
residential properties or traffic on Fairview Avenue; that a
development agreement shall be required as a condition of
annexation; that a Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to
opening for business and that the location of the handicapped
parking stall be adjacent to the building.
29. 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
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the City 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,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 12
and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take
judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon
the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways.
10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the
FINDINd3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 13
annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
11. The Applicant has stated and represented that its
intention is to construct and operate a wholesale and retail sales
business of vinyl products, primarily fencing which are permitted
uses in the C-G district.
12. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G,
the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
2. The concerns of the owners of property along Fairview
Avenue, stated in prior public hearings, of having
lights, particularly automobile headlights, shine into
their yards and homes.
3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
4. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
5. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
6. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 14
~~
7. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
8. Submission and approval of any required plats.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
any existing residential development.
10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback as mentioned
in the Planning Directors comments and in the
Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the other comments of the Planning Director,
Shari Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
13. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. "•
that since the enactment of the above section, the City has found
that it is difficult for the City and the Applicant to enter into
a development agreement prior to annexation; that it is therefore
concluded that a development agreement shall be entered into,
dealing with the matters set forth in the preceding section prior
to issuance of a building permit.
14. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FSNCE PAGE - 15
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian.
15. That it is concluded that 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the
standards under which the City Council shall review applications
for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those
requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions
of the area, the City Council concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, not constitute a conditional use
as under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance planned commercial
development, retail stores, and wholesale facilities, are
permitted uses in the C-G district, but since the
Comprehensive Plan states that all development requests
in the Mixed Use Areas around Fairview Avenue and Locust
Grove Road will lie subject to development review and
conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood
compatibility, the conditional use application is deemed
to be appropriate, as is the granting of such conditional
use.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met, but the
Comprehensive Plan requires a conditional use permit to
allow the use.
c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to
be harmonious in appearance with the intended character
of the general vicinity as long as development is
undertaken to meet the representations of the Applicant
in the Application and as stated at the public hearing
and those that may be required by the City under design
review.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as long
as development is undertaken to meet the representations
of the Applicant and those that may be required by the
City under design review.
e. The property will have sewer and water service available
if the Applicant extends the lines.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 16
i i
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would
be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
use will be required and the parking ordinance shall be
met including the preparation of a parking plan and
landscaping plan.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
16. It is concluded that the conditional use permit should be
granted, but as a condition of the conditional use permit a
development agreement should be entered into regarding the
development of the retail uses and such is hereby made a condition
of the granting of the conditional use permit.
17. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department,
Meridian City Engineer's office, Ada County Highway District,
Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and
the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and
addressed in a development agreement.
18. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall
be subject to de-annexation.
19. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 17
20. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained, with. appropriate
VOTED
buffering to residential properties or traffic on Fairview Avenue.
21. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant and its assigns.
22. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), and the issuance of a conditional use permit would be in the
best interest of the City of Meridian.
23. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed and the conditional use permit shall
not be granted.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER R6HN'PltEEDSt-~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE
VOTED
VOTED ~,J '/
VOTED ~"~'
VOTED
PAGE - 18
RECOAII~tENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
recommends to the City Council that the property set forth in the
application be approved for annexation, zoning and the issuance of
a conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in the
Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
+~(~Qsi
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
BUTTE FENCE PAGE - 19
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JOHN T. AND BETTY M. EDDY
ANNE7CATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE W 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4, SECTION 11
T.3N., R.1W, B.M., ADA COUNTY.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on November 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant, known as Tom Eddy,
appearing, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for November 14, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the November 14, 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;
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein;
that the property is
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1
approximately 1.35 acres in size; the parcel is on the north side
of Pine Avenue more than one-half of the distance, east to west,
between Linder and Ten Mile Road.
3. That the annexation and zoning application and the
accompanying letter from Mr. Eddy are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; the Applicant also submitted a plat application
which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full
4. Tom Eddy testified at the public hearing that the land
was going to be developed into five 8,000 square foot lots and a
small 1,500 square foot lot that is going to be joined with a
larger parcel in Haven Cove No. 5 to make two 8,000 square foot
lots; that the main purpose of the subdivision to be developed on
the property is to connect Haven Cove No. 4 and 5 to get access and
water to Haven Cove No. 5.
5. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT
and the proposed use would be for an R-4 residential type
development; that the Applicant stated in the accompanying letter
to the annexation application that the present use of the land is
for pasture.
6. The general area surrounding the property is used for
some agricultural use but is now mostly being developed
residentially, which is occurring to the north, east and south, all
of which are single family developments.
7. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
8. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2
9. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
10. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian
Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for R-4 development of
single family dwellings; that the R-4 zoning district requires a
minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone;
and that Section 11-2-411 B states as follows:.
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed developments."
12. That the property is in the MERIDIAN SCHOOLS NE
as set forth in the GENERAL LAND USE MAP, Second Page, of the
current Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the Comprehensive Plan
designates the area where the land in the application is located to
be a mixed residential area.
13. That in the HOUSING, page 66, section of the current
Comprehensive Plan, it does state:
"Currently, it is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage the overall residential density of approximately 3.0
dwelling units per acre within the Urban Service Planning
Area.";
and Section 11-2-411 B states as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed developments."
FINDINGS OF FACT fi CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3
14. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
15. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .
.'
16. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, when Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.10U, it states as follows:
"New urban density development should provide perimeter
fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent
windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other
properties."
18. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
18A. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4
area, the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
the City and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
19. That the property can be serviced with City water and
sewer at this time, provided the Applicant constructs the lines to
serve the property.
20. Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Assistant to the
Meridian City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, Meridian Planning
Director, Shari Stiles, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Ada
County Highway District, Central District health Department, and
Meridian School District submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
21. That some of the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton's, comments were that all irrigation and drainages
laterals and ditches shall be tiled; that existing domestic wells
and septic systems will have to be removed but wells may be used
for in-domestic purposes; determine the seasonal high ground water
elevation; that a drainage plan is required; that water service is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the
City computer model; that sanitary sewer service will be via an
extension of sewer mains installed as part of Haven Cove No 4; that
domestic water would be from an extension the 10 inch line in Haven
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5
Cove No 4; that 100 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be
required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works
Director; and other comments.
22. That the comment from the Meridian Fire Chief was that
the Fire Department would not have a problem with the annexation.
23. That some of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles',
comments were that perimeter fencing was required prior to
obtaining building permits, West Camelia Street does not line up
with existing Camelia Lane and lots must meet the R-4 requirements
24. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
"R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the
City of Meridian.";
that a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and a minimum house
size of 1,400 square feet shall be met in the R-4 District; that
all homes in the R-4 and R-8 districts shall be single family
dwellings.
25. The Meridian School District's comment was that this
subdivision would cause increased overcrowding and there is little
opportunity to shift attendance.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe - 6
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, stated as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
proposed subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement;"
30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal; linkages; and
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by County Highway
District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway
provisions within developments.
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to
pressurized irrigation; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L, M, and 11-9-606 b. 14;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10
that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation,
require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs,
executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any
development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there
shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are
met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-
annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this
paragraph were not met.
10. That since the Applicant's property is in the WARRIOR
NEIGHBORHOOD of the current Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and
zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies; it further is
in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Assistant to the Meridian
City Engineer, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health
Department, Ada County Aighway District, and Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District shall be met.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11
available and will have to be maintained.
15. That it is concluded that the property requested to be
annexed and zoned R-4 should be annexed and so zoned.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER RAFH~PRSE D~cLU-i~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
VOTED
VOTED DD I~~
VOTED_~y~" ~" ~Z -v
VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12
ION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the. conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and
that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements
and enter into the required development agreement, and meet the
conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if
the conditions are of met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:I DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13