Loading...
1995 11-14 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 10, 1995: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1995 (APPROVED) TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 12, 1995) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 12, 1995) 3. TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY CENTER MARKET PLACE BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY: (APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT; PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 4. TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO.6 BY BOB NAHAS: (TABLED UNTIL DEC3EMBER 12, 1995) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BILL HOWELL: (APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR APRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE & R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND ~~ DIRK MARCUM: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION BY DENNIS 8~ JANET BUTTERFIELD: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1 ACRE TO C-G FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELUOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDNISION NO.S (AMENDED) BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.6 BY JOHN EDDY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDNISION NO.6 BY JOHN EDDY: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 12, 1995) MERIDIAN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS -~. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 10, 1995: a~n~/vVed' MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1995 u/n/or~,.eaL to 1. TABLED OCTOBER 26, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISIQN N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: f~~- u~~:C ,9cc. /2~ hti 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRE MINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION N :~BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: ~,~e. w c, /Z~- ~~, 3. TABLED OCTOBER ~6; 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY CENTER M~A~RKET PLACE BY W.F~. MOORE COMPANY: c~j~~,ro~e ~o~+.~l. ~~t va2<i5~ ~ tie C C ~/i~~• C,n.d~~iv~,s 4. TABLED OCTOBER 2G 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK N0.6 BY BOB NAHAS: ~ ~/Q uwt. / ,~zt. /2 ~- CC'f R~p~O /i C<ti.~.Y~J ~Q It G[P~~~ 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BILL HOWELL c=prove ~/f ~ ~% /~ecamia-er~d,1~ to C'/C z4~ ~,e dehi~ed an.itie~. ~2v~~ 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR APRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: ~aa¢, on- ~a~oza.'~e reca~.~~~.~~ct<ct.b,,~ t~ fI-e C'/G 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDMSION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ,~J~- or- ~A.IiFJ'Le~.~'- /-ecm,-in-..~.~~du-~ils~tU t?~e C/~' with. Lsmd'i~•mrcr 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE & R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM: C%i~ at~~y E~~rePar-e ~~/ ~ ~ /e 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION Y DENNIS & JANET BUTTERFIELD: 10. PUBLIC HARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1 ACRE TO C-G FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELUOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: 11. PUBLIC H RING: RE UEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (AMENDED) BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: ~4Sf on ~ L'/e u/•{'~ fiaveza~ 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN EDDY: C'~z~ atfvLn.e~ r~ /.~eP~e ~/~ ~LIG 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDMSION N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY: fir-fie u~ti-~i2 ~ec, /2 ~" ~`".~' MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14. 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, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Vern Alleman, Dale Sharp, Bill Howell, Helen Sharp, AI Dauven, Jonathan Seel, Glen Smith, Mike Wardle, Dixie Roberts, Marc & Cathy Peterson, Malcolm MacCoy, Denis Piper, Ted Hutchinson, Don Brian, Becky Bowcut, Dave Turnbull, Amy Duenas, Michelle Noll, Dirk Marcum, Elaine Williams Schleckway, Clyde Steinback, Dennis Butterfield, Chuck Elliott, Leon Blazer, Paul Geile, Tom Eddy: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 10, 1995: Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions to those minutes? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1995: Johnson: Any changes to these minutes as prepared? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes of the special meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion by Charlie, second by Jim Shearer to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: I am going to step down on items 1 and 2 for an apparent conflict of interest. Charlie Rountree will take over, preside in my place. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 2 Rountree: Shari could you give us the status of where that is? Stiles: Commissioner Rountree and Commissioners I believe it was the annexation and zoning request was tabled to allow the applicant to meet the findings with a revised plat. That is how 1 remembered it, is that what you remember Wayne? Crookston: Yes Rountree: (Inaudible) comments from ACRD and we have not received those. Stiles: I have not received comments on the revised plat. Rountree: Counselor, is the hearing still opened on that or did we hold it open just for receipt of comments from ACRD? Crookston: I don't recall exactly whether we left the hearing open or not Charlie. It was some time ago. I can check my notes. What I have in my notes is that it was tabled for ACRD comments on September 12 and that is all I have in my notes. Rountree: Any discussion on item 1? Alidjani: i would like to know why we don't (inaudible) are they not doing their work or what? Shearer: I am not sure we ever got a completely revised plat, we got 2 or 3 revised plats. Rountree: We have the plat on the next item. Crookston: I have some notes on October 10, the annexation and zoning was tabled because we did not have Ada County Highway District comments on the preliminary plat which is item 2 on tonights agenda. It states that the City received a new preliminary plat and it stated because it is a new preliminary plat that if there are substantial changes there would need to be another public hearing. It was moved to table which was passed and Mr. Hepper moved to have another public hearing on today's date on the plat. Rountree: (Inaudible) Shearer: I so move. Hepper: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 3 Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to defer action on item 1 until (inaudible) all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Rountree: Is there a representative from the applicant here? I will open the hearing, you need to be sworn. Ted Hutchinson, Tealy's Land Surveying, 109 S. 4th St., Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: This has been going on so long it is kind of hard to figure out and remember where we are and what we have looked at on this one. The Highway District has reviewed this I don't know why you guys don't have your comments we received them in the mail I believe yesterday. The Highway District has made a decision and in essence what the Highway District has done is we had a traffic report prepared and submitted and I believe you guys have a copy of that and an updated copy which would include Packard Subdivision No. 2 that wasn't an issue of discussion with the Highway District. Our major discussions we had probably 3 or 4 public hearings with the Highway District over this it had to do with the crossing of Wingate Lane. We have proposed a single road crossing and it would simply cross Wingate Lane and the revised plat which I believe you have now, at one point we did have a road that actually came over and we were going to improve that portion of Wingate Lane that lies within the plat. We have now revised that and you should have that plat it has moved that portion of the road a lot to the west so that there is no longer that portion of. We are not improving any portion of Wingate Lane. The Highway District is requiring that we put in gates for the east and west traffic that we will build the public street up to Wingate Lane and gate it but we will not improve that portion across Wingate Lane until the 2 properties to the south are developed. At that point then the gates will be removed and there will be additional crossings or whatever is going to be done to that area south of our project which would be the Reichert and the Sharp property. But the Highway District has made that recommendation or requirement that we get that so that there is no traffic from this development crossing. This will give us the opportunity to install the sewer and water and utility services in that area and provide an all weather surtace so that your public works department can get through for maintenance on the sewer but no traffic will cross Wingate Lane from the development. In essence that is what has happened with the Highway District comments. A couple of other issues that have come up since the time that we originally submitted this, John Barnes has been talking to the Meridian School district about a site that is adjacent he owns a 20 acre Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 4 parcel that is adjacent to Carol Subdivision. Mr. Barnes has been negotiating with the School District about a portion of that. I believe they have come to an agreement for a school site on the western portion of that 20 acres. Part of the agreement is that we get sewer to that the Packard 1 subdivision will now be subject to an easement in that corner so that sewer can be provided and water services, I believe it is a 20 foot wide easement that will extend up through the NE comer of our lot so that they can get sewer and water to the school and provide a pathway access from this development into the school site. I don't know if there are any questions on this, like I say this has been such a long drawn out process on this particular development. I think we have heard the issues several times and I don't want to try to beat a dead horse on these issues. We recognize that the sewer extension is contingent upon the completion of the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision so that it will make that extension from the existing location in Locust Grove Road when it comes through to the end of the Chamberlain Estates Subdivision then I believe PNE and Edmonds has worked out a verbal agreement with Mr. Alleman concerning the location of the sewer crossing. I think we also had discussions with your public works department about not requiring a paved or all weather surface for that small portion that crosses the Alleman property that there would be a manhole on either end I think it is less than 400 feet so that it could have clean outs from either end. So that when Chamberlain is developed we will connect to the sewer at that point and in all likelihood that is where the first phase of the Packard 2 development will begin on that north end. It will have ready access through the Chamberlain Estates development to Locust Grove Road and we will be able to extend the sewer south through this project and eventually connect to the Packard 1 subdivision and remove the temporary lift station that is going to be installed to service that. Are there any questions that I might answer for the Commission at this time? Hepper: The gates on Wingate Lane has been an issue in the past. Can you elaborate on what type of gates and how they would open and who would have access to those. If they are electronic or manual. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Heppers, the gates will be probably manual gates and the people that will have access to those gates will be your sewer department so they can have access to utilities so they can maintain the sewer in there and then emergency personnel. There won't be an residents that have access to those gates and the gates are required to be maintained by the developer. Hepper: Would the Sharp's have access to those gates? Hutchinson: No, the gates will be so the Sharp's will have uninterrupted access along Wingate Lane. They will not have to stop and open a gate, they will have direct access north to Ustick. What it is doing is interrupting the public road until those properties to the south develop and then at that point then the Highway District will make a decision about Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 5 removing the gates and crossing. Hepper: So the public road would be locked off. Hutchinson: The public road would be the one interrupted that is why it is going to be very important. This is really going to tie to the development of Chamberlain when that is completed that will be the access to that major northern portion of our development. Any other questions? Rountree: Is the plat dated March of 1995 the most recent? Do you have a best guess time table of starting any activity on this particular phase? Hutchinson: On that phase no we don't have an estimate. Like I said a lot of it is, I believe Chamberlain has received a one year time extension but that time is running now so I would suspect that they will be beginning this spring which will give us a pretty good idea of when this particular development will get off the ground. Hepper: Have you seen the comments from Shari Stiles? Hutchinson: Yes I have. Hepper: Number 4 I think states that, not #4, it is #7 that there is a report that apartments have been started or something, do you know anything about that? Hutchinson: I don't know anything about any new construction? Hepper: There isn't any construction on this parcel? Hutchinson: I believe that is the old Brown house on that site and I don't know, we haven't been involved in any changes in new service on that particular parcel. Hepper: Do you have any problems with any of her other comments? Hutchinson: No I didn't in fact because they require written response we will make sure that she gets the written response to all of these. With regard to some of them we will note those lots that have the frontage requirement we (inaudible). All of the lots have been calculated for area based on your requirements in your code for lot size. The phasing we have been a little unsure of because we are not sure exactly where is this going to start. We will have a better idea once we know exactly how the sewer is running on that. The easements will be located as required. The pressurized irrigation we are going to provide as required by ordinance. The buffering, we are going to provide an exterior fence on this. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 6 Some areas will have berms where others will not but they will be fenced. Ditches will be tiled or covered in accordance with City ordinance. Number 16 of those knuckles, that is an ACRD standard they allow the 21 feet. That is a minimum that they want on those, in fact that design was, we originally did not have that small island in there but after discussions with the Highway District staff those islands were placed in there with that street width. So those do meet ACRD requirements but we really have no problem with the comments issues. Hepper: What about her number 1 comment? Hutchinson: I don't know how much parks area is going to be required or what is recommended for this particular area. We are providing open space they are smaller parks within this development. Open areas as well as the larger parks that are in the Packard 1 subdivision and all of this is going to be tied together. With the negotiations and movement with the school district I believe there is going to be adequate recreation facilities in that particular area adequate open space. Rountree: Any other questions? Okay, we might have you back. This is a public hearing, anybody wish to testify and I will point out that we are in receipt of a list of issues dated November 12, 1995 from Wingate Lane residents and that will be included in the testimony in this hearing. Vern Alleman, 2101 E. Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alleman: 1 guess some of this I might have given before, I hope you don't mind I don't think 1 will take over the 3 minutes if I can go ahead. I have it written down, is that alright? I have some concerns about this subdivision which are not addressed as best I can determine. What size of irrigation pipe will be installed? Will it be buried? And where will it be placed, what kind of easement and access for maintaining and so forth. If buried, where will manholes and so forth be? What access to head gate from Nampa Meridian Irrigation lateral? How will pressurized irrigation be installed and how will it affect our irrigation? Also, drainage, overflow from pressurized irrigation. What assurances that any changes made to the irrigation system will be done? (Inaudible) irrigation water? I have had experience with this, it has been a real problem. Also, that the irrigation system continues past our property and drains in the south slough. In reference to the sewers I mentioned before there will not be a road across our property nor manholes until such time as our property might be developed. Also, there are a number of conditions that will have to be met in regards to putting the sewer across our property. The sewer and stub street on North Devlin Way where they access our property are not acceptable and I need the right to change these before final approval. I am concerned about fencing for the good of both the subdivision and us adjoining property owners. The South Slough runs a lot of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 7 water at certain times of the year and there is danger of children getting hurt. It should be fenced off, we need a fence to keep dogs and people out of our properties so they don't get hurt as well as to keep dogs and so forth from chasing our livestock. I am afraid that an animal will be chased through a fence and get out and cause an accident and I will be sued. Also, there is a possibility that someone could come on our property and get hurt and sue us. I think there needs to be some provision made for recreation of people in subdivisions in general. My thinking is that small areas will be developed where children can play outside, basketball, volleyball or maybe a little tennis something that wouldn't be elaborate and easy to maintain. Hopefully maintenance could be done by a neighborhood association. As it is now where can kids play except in the streets. I noticed that developers are changing from small (inaudible) and instead setting aside open spaces. I fail to see how these will provide for areas for children to play in. I realize there is cost associated with this. I think this cost should be borne by the people in the subdivision who are creating the need. In my estimation this cost is best met by impact fees. I think the City is working to address this now but I question whether it is addressing the need for small recreation areas in the subdivisions. The plan as I see it now is for large area recreation facilities. I think for large facilities the location of school and park together can compliment each other. I am concerned about the traffic generated by the subdivision. What provision is there to handle it? As I understand it the last information I had from the Highway department they don't have any way out of this subdivision to accommodate the traffic to meet what they require. What about the school situation, what is the school board's position for more building with the present situation of over crowding. Have you as a Commission discussed the recreation to schools situation and if so what are your thoughts. I am not trying to intimidate anyone, I just think there are these things important to good planning. An incident that supports my testimony happened at 5:00 this evening. I took a short walk back to the rear of our property, in the property adjoining us on the west is a pasture and three children from the subdivision were playing in the pasture. When they saw me they started running. Two of the children looked to be 6 or 7 but the third one probably 10 or 12 years old. As they were running a big Holstein bull came toward them and me. 1 yelled at them to get out of there that the bull could hurt them. The bull was bellowing and showing his strength. Instead of the kids getting under the fence they proceeded to cross to the other side of the pasture and were out in the middle without any way to escape so the bull charged him. This greatly concerned me because 1 know what a bull can do fortunately the bull did not charge them. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: You will have to bear with me because plead ignorance on a lot of this stuff that has been going on for the last six months regarding Packard 1 and Packard 2 and where they connect. Mr. Smith has graciously given me the new plat. One of my biggest Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 8 concerns is the connection between one and two. What access, are they going to have a road, they have a 40 foot easement or right of way down through 2 separations there between one and two. I don't know if there is going to be a road in there or if it is a fenced area. That is where my head gate is on the (inaudible) and I need to get down that road to operate my head gate. At the first public hearing on Packard 1 I voiced my concerns about it and as well as a lot of other people as far as how much land they are going to have to give up to provide access and also provide adequate berming for Carol Subdivision. It was up in the air as to what was going to happen with that development in that area. The only findings that I have are the ones that were recommended denial until they came out with a better plan. 1 guess they have since come out with a better plan but I don't know what it is. Also, in the findings that I have from October 11 in the Planning and Zoning meeting it states on item 16 that all ditches, canals, waterways require to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation, when annexed, and if not so tiled the property should be subject to de-annexation. The way I read that is it sounds to me like they have to go and the the ditches before you can annex. That has not been done and I believe one has been annexed already has it not? Rountree: I believe so. Brian: As a month ago it hadn't been done, I don't know what their plans on doing, but at the first public hearing I got up and voiced my concern about getting those ditches tiled at time of development, that is the first thing they do when they go in and develop some property some parcels so we don't' run into the same problems we run into at Dove Meadows which is adjacent to this development where they bury the ditch as they run phase 1, 2, 3, 4 or what have you because they seem to always get that ditch tiling done in the last final phases. They put it off of course because of the money factor of what it costs to do this. So they usually do that part last and that is the problems I am having with Dove Meadows it is all over grown and nobody takes care of it and as you well know we have had multiple problems with all the irrigation out there. Also, I would like to reiterate Vem's concems about this pressurized irrigation and the availability of water to us water users that are already on the system as well as access to our head gates and who is going to have access to them. And where is the run off water going to go with this pressurized irrigation. It is going to have to go somewhere. Right now they are having a little pow wow concerning the run off water with the Fred Meyer development and the Stor it facility with Avest who are working with me and trying to get that figured out. Which is working quite well. But, my biggest concern is the irrigation and keeping informed to what is going on and what is going to be going on instead of what is just getting everything past and sent through and then find out down the road when it is all done that it isn't right. I also had a question of what happened to, is it still going to be a lift station in this area that Meridian is going to be taking care of? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 9 Rountree: In this particular subdivision it would not require a lift station. One requires it, with the completion of this subdivision it is our understanding that they then can gravity sewer both subdivision 1 and 2. Brian: I believe that is my biggest concerns. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Rountree: Anyone else? AI Dauvin, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dauvin: Well, I live kind of kitty corner to this subdivision here they are talking about right now. I have got concems about the water too because it goes through one of these, right through the center of it. When spring gets here we would like to have our pasture growing green. My wife has seven horses and they are not old plugs or nags, three of them are jumping horses so they are very valuable. And we have a world champion paint horse sitting there too. We just can't afford to have kids and all of these people running up and down the road and in our pasture where the South Slough goes through our pasture, we have to be real careful of it because there are always kids out in it. It is a constant battle of chasing them out from the Carol Subdivision. I mean, this, I will give you an example of subdivision intelligence. This spring, I am talking to the neighbor and here comes these limbs, they are floating down the Slough. So I said well I better go over there and see what is going on. Just before I get across the road here is a guy with a chain saw and he is out there sawing limbs off and he picks it up and he throws it in the Slough. Before he can pick up the next one he sees me coming and stops and says that was just an accident. I said yeah that was just an accident they come down to our culvert they plugged it up and it floods our house and our barn. and our yard and this is what we are trying to stop. The Highway District has said gates but they are going to allow bicycle and foot traffic up and down the lane. I know that you guys will take no responsibility for that foot traffic up an down that road. As me being a part owner of that road I will take no responsibility for it either if an accident does happen to somebody on that. So, the foot traffic has to stop along with the automobile traffic. t guess I agree with the rest of the guys around there, the irrigation system seems to be a big problem. It needs to be done right away if they are going to go ahead with this. I have no objections to it, I am not anti-growth or anything. It it is just that I would like to see these things addressed immediately. If they tear up a ditch it needs to be fixed right away. 1 have trouble right now with one of the neighbors right by the head gate. He has it tiled and he will run a back hoe over it every year and bust the pipe, it invariably takes him a month to 2 months to fix it. So we get about half the flow of water. This is some of things that greatly concern me and my wife. Thank you. Rountree: Thank you, anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 10 Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: I have some of these same concems that have been voiced here. On this of course is the irrigation system that we have and any work on that irrigation system should be done between on the off season between the irrigation season, October to April. Those that (inaudible) which comes right off the Nampa Meridian canal right east of me, south and east it is about 100 yards east, that is where the delivery comes off that. That should be tiled across there. It should be tiled, there is a delivery ditch on the east of my property there right on the other side of my lane and that should be tiled so it handles that. So we don't have a maintenance problem there. It should be tiled by Reicherts and down through that subdivision and wherever else. It goes on down and feeds in Gear down to the corner, I think Brinegar gets that water too. Anyway that is a major concern of us on this delivery system here and another thing that I have that we didn't put in on this issues that should be addressed here is berms and fences on the east of my property and then a gate across the Nampa Meridian irrigation as a buffer between the subdivision 1 and subdivision 2 so that those people don't use that as a foot path because that is not what it is for. It is for striGly those people that have right to be on there for the irrigation purposes. So I would request that be done, a gate be put on there. I made a little (inaudible) I do have the same concerns that AI addressed as far as the foot traffic that would be allowed. Ada County said that they would allow foot traffic and bicyclist on the lane. If they are going to do that and you guys accept that then I think you guys should be liable for any injuries or damage to personal property that involves any of those people that come on our lane. It is a private lane so if that occurs. There is one thing that Ada County said that Reichert should be provided access to a public street system. We say on the lane here that if that is the case then he should access north of his property onto the street system there and not across Wingate Lane there because that just opens it up to what we have right now. What we had before we said no gate put the gates on the east and west rather than on the north and south. So, we are into that. As Shari noted and I don't know for sure, but there is on the Brown's property there probably anywhere from 10 to 20 cars down there right now. Whether he has an automobile mechanic shop going on there or what it is going on with this. There is plenty of traffic and he does, that is supposed to be a single dwelling and there is 2 addresses. The postal service does go down there and the traffic down that little street that goes down to that property 1 can see it from my place and I bet some time those people are going 50 or 60 miles an hour. So I think somebody should take a look at that, what is happening down there before anything (inaudible). As far as approving this right now I understand that there is a subdivision that went in default that was to be accessed off of phase 1 and so whether that is true or not we should, if that is in default how are they going to get into one and two and so forth. That should be addressed. There are so many ifs and ands right now. I think before you gentlemen do any approval of this we all need to know what is happening here. Because we are the ones being negatively impacted out there. So we want to know what is going to happen and we don't have to say well 1 think Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 11 this is going to happen. (Inaudible) 5 years or 10 years down the road before the sewer system gets across Alleman's property before they meet his stipulations. So there are so many things that, and as far as schools right now, if growth occurs I think we better have our services go along with the growth and that is all I have got. Any questions? Alidjani: I have one Mr. Sharp, you were mentioning something about a paper that you had in your hands, the concerns you had, are you referring to the letter of November 12? Is that what you were saying, I couldn't see the paper, you had the paper in your hand. Sharp: Yes Rountree: Anyone else? Dixie Roberts, 2855 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Roberts: Like the rest of the neighbors I am very concerned about the irrigation, and I don't think that the developers whoever it is has really addressed that. 1 really don't understand the pressurized part of it, but if that means that we are going to have to put in more of a system additional monies to me I am not for that at all. I certainly want it the same as it is now, I don't know how they plan on doing that. Afso, they talked about berms but not around my properties which I would certainly like to see, have them do. Eight foot berms and fences on the south side of my land and on the west side because the back of these homes I assume are going to be their back yards it is going to be on my part of the plan. So I am real concerned about the berm part because they don't show it on the plat as berms on that. The tall berms like 8 feet because they do settle. But the irrigation, my land is worthless without good irrigation like I have now. That is my main concern. That is all I have thank you. Rountree: Anyone else? Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sharp: Council members, I like everybody I don't want to be redundant and constantly repeat myself but I guess if they can't remember what has happened we are going to have to. I agree with my husband, there are a great many ifs here. I think one of the first ones that I hope everybody is listening to is when the engineer was saying that they pretty well have things verbally on the irrigation and Mr. Alleman's steps up because it has to cross his property stating that there are many things that have to be determined but they would have to come to an agreement before this can happen. We are right back where we started, we have a lot of ifs. I agree with the others, unless it is in black and white this is what is going to be and then 1 think we are going to have a lot of problems down the road. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 12 Of course speaking of road we are right back to the public versus the private of Wingate Lane. For those of us that were down at the Ada County Highway meetings several times and listened and saw part of the review I find it kind of interesting when they said and I think Shari has a copy of it that bicyclist and the walkers could walk down that lane and have access, meaning they could go beyond those gates through there. I think a letter was given to Shari from an attorney Ken Krise, defining the public road and of course this has been addressed in the Idaho Courts if you look in the library, Cox v. Cox you will see how it defines private and public roads and of course once you get into one case it states another and another. Until this is a established as a public road which it is not, we have not got really the ability to say that somebody has the ability to use it. Partially as a public road or either bicyclist or foot traffic. And of course like the rest of them I a little concerned too when they say the school is going to go in there. Of course we all know that the schools are vitally important here in Meridian even if we can't get a bond issue passed. But they are going to be right next to Eagle Road and Fairview and we are going to have a situation quite comparable to Cole Rd and Fairview. So I think there is something that really needs to be addressed very cautiously. Here again it is a verba- agreement nothing is in concrete. And of course our traffic from the subdivision on the east side of Wingate (inaudible) and we all know what the traffic conditions are there and also the condition of Locust Grove itself. Being told by Ada County that they would pave that and resurface that in the year 2001 only because Fred Meyer is going in there. I think there are a great many ifs here and I don't want to go on and on to elaborate on them but I think they need to think to as my husband or someone mentioned we are not too sure whether they are going to get (inaudible) phase 1 if they haven't got the access which they had hoped to get that either 2 was not in black and white because of the width of the access road into that property. So I think there are a lot of things here that need to be considered and 1 am not saying that we are not going to have this subdivision which l honestly say I don't want because at this poin# we have too much going in Meridian, we really don't need the housing. So it is not a vital issue at this point in time. I think there are too many things here because we are at the corner where the lateral is for irrigation and here again we have another addition to consider and of course we are talking about these other things (End of Tape) private and public road should really be scrutinized. Thank you. Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify? Ted, do you want to clarify some issues that have been pointed out? Hutchinson: My confusion on not understanding what is going on, we are not hiding anything, we have not hidden anything we have presented exactly what the proposal is going to be. We are in the preliminary process right now with this application. It is before you as a preliminary plat. We recognize that there are conditions of approval that have to be met. Things that will not be worked at this time but will be worked out prior to the City signing the final plat which means we have met your conditions of approval in an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 13 acceptable manner that those issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of not only the City Engineer but also the City Council and the City Clerk. These are some of the exhibits that we have had in the past to kind of remind you where we are with this project and how this entire section lays out. The development that is occurring in in section, nearly the entire west half of this particular section is presently developed. We are simply moving in a progressive and a natural progression by extending the City from its existing city limits to the east. We are not leap frogging, the only parcels that are being left out of this particular area are these two and Reicherts would be involved in this they have absolutely no problems and have been very accommodating to us and have worked with us quite closely on this development. Their's in all likelihood would be the next parcel that is going to fall in line and come forward to you. Chamberlain Estates 1 and 2, just speaking with a representative from Hubble Engineering they are working on getting the pre- construction meetings set up so that they can get Chamberlain Estates undervvay. They are hoping to get that project off the ground and running by spring with the Chamberlain Estates No. 2 up and running starting in the spring. So we are really not that far off as far as providing the access and the services coming into this portion of the development. Again, it makes logical sense there. With regard to the irrigation issues, we are working with the irrigation districts. Anything that we do to the irrigation system has to have their approval. We can't cover a ditch, we can't change the location of a ditch without having that approved by the irrigation district. Naturally we don't know exactly how the system is going to layout, we are in the preliminary phases. We know that we are going to have to pressurize an irrigation system and service the lots of this development. That is an issue that will be worked out through engineering and through cooperation and guidance with the irrigation district. I believe Nampa Meridian is one of the forerunners regrind pressurized irrigation systems in urban subdivisions. It is new to the area, the City's have adopted the requirement that you pressurize irrigation systems using the existing water right. We intend to do that. But as I say it has to be worked out with the irrigation district. Rountree: Clarify that does not affect the existing property owners. Hutchinson: No, in fact those water rights that are existing cannot be interrupted, they have to receive their water. Regardless of the development that water has to get through to those individuals who have the right to that water and we will provide that water through the system so they receive their (inaudible). Hepper: Ted, would that pressurized irrigation system be administered by Nampa Meridian Irrigation or by the homeowners association? Hutchinson: At this point I believe it would be administered by the' Homeowners association I am not sure that Nampa Meridian is taking over those systems. I think they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 14 will work in closely but if Nampa Meridian would love to take it over we would love to give it to them. Because that is going to be, it is really difficult utilizing a rural agricultural water right for an urban development. It has some inherent problems but I don't believe they are insurmountable at this time. Hepper: I think we checked with them, there is a means in which they will take them over. Hutchinson: We would certainly look at that and probably encourage the developer to grant that over. One of the major issues that has come up in this project has been the traffic from this development. Primarily it has been the neighbors concern of the traffic using Wingate lane. We don't want our traffic onto Wingate Lane in fact the Highway District has now set it up so that there will be no vehicular traffic onto Wingate Lane. It would seem a little ludicrous to cut off the only access point to which would allow students to walk to a school site by not providing an access pedestrian and bicycle access across this area so that they can get access to the school. Hepper: Could you show us where the potential school site is? Hutchinson: The potential school site is this (inaudible) we will providing an access easement (inaudible) through this lot and it will also cut off the corner of Mr. Barnes' lot so it will not (inaudible) Rountree: Would you point that out to the audience? Hutchinson: Again this is the Barnes' property here (inaudible) providing access to that school site through this area right here. Not only that but sewer and water (inaudible). Again in the preliminary stages we are asking you what do you want to see what do you want us specifically when we get to the final plat stage those items have to be accomplished satisfactorily to the city or you will not sign and at that time all of the is are crossed and the is are dotted and everything is in place. If it is not in place then the signatures are withheld. Again, what do you want us to do, we know some specific things that we have to be done, those are very clearly called out in the ordinance. We are working toward those but we are, it would be ludicrous to start any work prior to having some type of approval and that is what we are asking for at this point is your approval. Are there any questions from the Commission? Thank you. (Inaudible) Hutchinson: Members of the Commission, I don't know exactly what Mr. Barnes' has proposed on the balance of the property which would be the eastern portion. That would provide the rest of the access into the development. We are providing a readily accessible Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 15 foot or bicycle traffic from this area through our development into the school site. (Inaudible) Hutchinson: That will come through Packard Subdivision No. 1, this is the northeast corner of Packard Subdivision. (Inaudible) Crookston: We need to address the comments on the record, if you have other questions please come forward. Sharp: 1 am still a little concerned, he says he is going to grant a walking path from phase one is that what we are saying then? I am right back to square one until they can prove that is not a private road they can't really make Wingate Lane a private road public. I think if they test that and it has been tested in the courts and we don't mean to sound that we don't want the kids walking by there or through there but here again we are with public and private and my ability. Brian: The access to the school, correct me if I am wrong, does that have to cross the access of the ditch lateral I mean the right of way for the ditch? (Inaudible) Brian: And what kind of, if that is an access way for the foot traffic is that a road or foot traffic? (Inaudible) Brian: What is going to keep those kids from using that access that ditch right of way as a walking path? And messing with the ditch head gates and what have you down though there. When I go down to, I turn at Eagle Road to turn my head gate in I have to go through 1 or 2 gates there and go to my head gate and then go to another gate down at the other end of Chateau Meadows, there would be about 4 gates on that road by the time I get to the other end to go that way. If I can turn around and come back out the other way I can do that but I don't know what is going on. Also, I don't know where the traffic is getting into the first phase unless it is coming through the second phase. The access from Dove Meadows that plat in Dove Meadows that they have drawn in on this is a part that has been developed. This part he has lost his plat on that whole area, that has to go back to Planning and Zoning and square one. So I don't know how they are coming up with this road in the middle. That is no man's land that everybody is kind of waiting until the last thing and that is where my second head gate is right there where it splits off into two laterals at this point where I am having all of my problems. This is a ditch along here that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 16 is not maintained and having problems. My other lateral is off of here and goes completely around that entire project. So, if we are talking access to that road down to that head gate access road that is going to be more problems. Just build a sky bridge or something like that. Thanks Rountree: Any other testimony? Sharp: I do have concerns about using the Nampa Meridian easement there for a foot path and I think that is what they have in mind to get down to that school. I do want a gate across to separate my property from that subdivision in any way they are on that Nampa Meridian irrigation because I don't want those kids. They throw rocks at my livestock, I can go out there and pick up golf balls at any time. I've got debris, plastic and everything else close down and gets down and can plug up that delivery ditch that goes into the subdivision west of me and on down. So that is a real concern and as far as Mr. Hutchinson saying that you don't' want to stop kids going across there so they can go to that school well like I say if you guys are willing to take the liability for anybody causing property damage or personal injury but we don't want it because that would just be a flock down there. We don't have, we don't need that problem. Rountree: Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the hearing. I think having heard the testimony on the plat I would entertain a motion to go back to the first item on the agenda the tabled annexation and zoning request. Shearer: So moved Hepper: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to return to item 1 on the agenda, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Any discussion on item 1? We need to either continue tabling that item for further information which might be or some type of a motion. Shearer: What were we missing on this? Rountree: I believe the only thing we are missing is the official comments from ACHD is that correct Shari? Did you get those today? Stiles; Commissioner Rountree do you have the comments from Bruce Freckleton as far Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 17 as some of the information he is still requesting on this plat? Rountree: Yes we do, those pertain to the plat not necessarily the annexation and zoning request. Gary, are you aware of the comments from ACRD? When we will be receiving them? Smith: Nothing other than what has been testified to by the applicant's representative. Rountree: Thank you, we need some kind of an action. We have not prepared findings as of yet have we Counselor? Crookston: (Inaudible) Rountree: So they would have to be either re-written, modified or tabled. Crookston: These notes do not go bads far enough for me to be able to tell what happened on the findings. Rountree: My recollection was that they were prepared and tabled. Crookston: That could very well be, I think even if that is the case you need to at least review those to see if you desire to take action (inaudible) as they have been done or whether or not (inaudible) if you haven't reviewed them recently. Hepper: I think where there has also been some changes in the plat and some additional testimony. Crookston: There isn't any additional testimony on the annexation. Hepper: I suppose rather than write new ones we need to dig up the old ones and have them reviewed for the next meeting. Crookston: You could do that or if in the night you could review them during the break or you could table this matter right now and bring them back on the table at the next meeting or bring them back on the next agenda. Hepper: I wouldn't mind reviewing them tonight if they are available, I am not sure they can be available that quick. Rountree: Do you want to move as such? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 18 Shearer: 1 move we defer this until later in the meeting. Hepper:Second Rountree: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Let's go back to item 2 on the agenda, which is the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision, we need a motion on that. I don't believe you can take any action until the annexation and zoning has been completed. Shearer: We have already deferred that so let's go on to 3. Rountree: Okay, it is considered deferred until later on this evening as well. ITEM #3: TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY CENTER MARKET PLACE BY W. H. MOORE COMPANY: Bowcutt: If you recall this item was heard I believe in September. It was a public hearing for preliminary plat approval. The Commission asked for 3 different items, one they wanted us to submit a landscaping plan along Overland Road for this commercial subdivision which we have submitted landscape plans. Shari and I brought copies for you to look at this evening. Two, at that particular time Ada County Highway District staff had not reviewed this project formally reviewed nor had they written a staff report. We have since received a staff report and then there was one item where we had a difference of opinion and then we received a letter this week from Mr. Sale addressing the item. One of you recall one of the issues that Mr. Sale brought up when we had our public hearing was the issue of the site visibility for this approach right here. After review by the ACHD traffic engineer it has been determined that approach is acceptable, we don't have any hazard with visibility. I brought copies of that for you this evening. The letter on top is the letter from Mr. Sale (inaudible). The one issue that we could not agree on was the number of approaches, we had a previous commitment from ACHD in writing that we were allowed up to 5 access points for these parcels on Overland Road. We had submitted a preliminary plat showing four approaches, two were the private road accesses and two were drive ways shared by two lots. ACHD came back and said we would only allow two approaches then they revised their staff report and indicated they would allow only three and then finally they agreed that they had made previous written commitments to my client and accepted the four approaches. So I believe, Rountree: Would you point those out? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 19 Bowcutt: One right here, one here and then these two little gray areas are the approaches which is a shared approach for these two lots right here. This is basically, this was done by Hillside Nursery, this is the company that my client utilizes for his landscaping. They show maples and some various burning bushes and junipers, old gold junipers, Autumn Ashes, kind of scattered throughout there. This is just one half of that area. They wanted to do it at 20 scales so it takes up a pretty big drawing. I just kind of colored that up to kid of give you an idea of what that would look like. That second part of that design is this right here. It is basically the same consistent, the same type of junipers, red twig dogwoods, burning bushes, Autumn Ashes, etc. Hepper: Would that be a berm? Bowcut: Yes, that would be a berm and sodded. Hepper: What would be the height of the berm? Bowcut: They didn't indicate on this particular drawing, usually they range from anywhere from 3 to 5 feet. Typically four commercial type developments you don't want them too high it is not like residential where you are trying to buffer them from road noise. You want your visibility for commercial type developments. I kind of colored this one up a little bit to kind of give you an idea of what this particular site looks like. If you recall this Ten Mile Creek running parallel here and then it goes across Interstate 84. This is a natural waterway, it is listed by Water Resources a protected waterway so we can't go in there and make any modifications to it or disrupt that in way shape or form. The City of Meridian also has a sewer easement that runs parallel through right through here and then runs across the interstate. There are existing I believe four existing manholes so we could, I think Shari in her comments asked that we basically try to improve the looks of the bank on our side but we would have to be very careful. Here I show just basically a little bit of green showing a little contouring, maybe a little sod or something more natural like a red (inaudible) or something like that because we can't put any trees over that sewer line, that is basically the Cites policy. Right through this area here you could put turf and trees and shrubbery along that section of the Interstate because we don't have any interference with the sewer line. We also kind of showed some trees and shrubbery along here so you kind of get a visual view if you were looking from above. One of other issues that was brought up that you wanted us to consider and come back with some answers is the maintenance and the question of who would take responsibility of putting in these landscaping facilities along Overland Road. After meetings with the developers they indicated that they would be willing to stick in their protective covenants which will govern all of these commercial lots, maintain the integrity of building styles, materials and landscaping. This particular Landscaping plan would be tied in with those covenants and therefore (inaudible) they would have to landscape according to the plan and basically but in a timetable that this will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 20 have to be done within a certain time frame like prior to occupancy and so forth. One of the problems that we find with commercial lots unlike, just like residential lots you don't go in and landscape a residential lot and then turn around and build the home on the lot. The fear is if we go in and build this when this is constructed the (inaudible) and so forth so our preference would be obviously maintain the same type of landscaping throughout the whole Overland frontage and this could be done by binding the plan through the covenants. We don't want a hodge podge and nothing matches and we appreciate you guys taking the initiative and ask that there be consistency in landscaping along there. As far as maintenance, maintenance would be basically (inaudible)whoever owns that particular lot just like maintenance of their trees within their parking areas, along the perimeters of their building. The City has in their ordinance requirements that they have so many trees and so forth and a combination of open space or grass as compared to their asphalt. Do you have any questions? Johnson: Does anyone have any questions? Are you finished? Bowcutt: Yes, I think Jonathan had a couple of comments that he wanted to address. Seel: Just one other quids comment if we can. Another requirement that was asked by the City of Meridian was a 35 foot landscape setback along here. Of course this is I-84. What we would like to ask is the set back also goes along here and it doesn't really affect us because you have a sewer easement here. But we would like to ask that the City reconsider the 35 foot setback along this area. We feel that is a fairly sizable setback and I think the intent of that is to make that visually pleasing. I think if you can kind of visualize going down the fteeway when this park is fully developed however it might be developed, you are going to see the buildings, you are going to see a lot of landscaping, you are going to see a lot of different things within in that, this is not going to be a real visual point. Up here you have an entrance and you certainly want a visual point there but back here to give up 35 feet of the land really cuts into those lots. There will be landscaping here but keep in mind there will be landscaping in these lots along the roads and trees and stuff so it all will blend in. So what we would like to ask is that in this particular area right here which would be lot 5, 6 and 8 that we reduce the setback down to say something more in the neighborhood of 15 or 20 feet which we would landscape. Keeping in mind that the rest of the park and the rest of the development will also be landscaped and it will be a blend and you are not going to have quite the focal point here that your intention of 35 feet setback up here in the entrance way you would have. So we would just ask that you consider (inaudible). Johnson: Shari, the setback 35 foot is part of our ordinance? Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners, this is not in the ordinance it is expressed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 21 in the Comprehensive Plan as an ideal for entrance corridor roads. Johnson: So it is not necessary for them require a variance then? Stiles: No Johnson: Thank you, Charlie you had a question of Shari. Rountree: Shari or Gary either one, the indication by the applicant was to have the landscape taken care of by covenants. The City has no control over covenants, what are your thoughts on that? Stiles: Commissioner Rountree and Commissioners, that is what is typically done in any subdivision, residential or commercial that is what is being done at Fred Meyer, it is, 1 guess I don't really know what you are getting at. Rountree: Are the landscape requirements in those developments part of the covenants for the subdivision or are they part of the development agreement? And the actual approval of the subdivision plat. Stiles: They are typically both they are included in the development agreement and have been on some projects made conditions of the preliminary plat. Usually it is spelled out as a common lot that is to be owned and maintained by the owners association In this case I guess it would be just the developer. Rountree: My understanding of the presentation is that it would be the responsibility of each lot owner not a common lot to the subdivision. Stiles: So then it wouldn't necessarily be consistent. Rountree: The suggestion is that it be consistent by covenants by the subdivision but not be specified in the development agreement for the subdivision or a condition of issuance of a building permit say. Stiles: I believe it should be in place prior to building occupancy if anything. The entire landscaping should be in place prior to any either the building permits being issued or the occupancies being issued. And then thereafter could be maintained but I think to be consistent it should all be done at the same time. I think that is, is that not what. Rountree: That is not what I heard. Becky might want to clarify that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 22 Bowcutt: If I could clarify that, basically what, we want this to be bound by a particular plan that is on file at the City. So it wouldn't just be some comment in the covenants refereeing consistency in the landscaping. We are talking about binding the project to a specific plan that is on file. All the uses within this project fall under the conditional use category because of the planned development. So at that time you will have those landscaping requirements imposed. We have landscaping requirements imposed with our development agreement when we did our annexation of the western 20 acres. Then we could have another condition so I think we have covered ourseff multiple times. As far as construction of the landscaping facilities the developers preference would be that it be constructed in conformance with the plan on file at the City and referenced in the covenants as each lot develops. And then that area will be maintained by that commercial retail or office or whatever that particular use would be. They would maintain that just as they do the rest of their landscaping facilities. It would be an easement on the plat stating that this is the 35 foot landscaped area long Overland Road and state responsibility and so forth. So we are trying to protect that it won't go to weeds that we won't have a problem. With commercial facilities typically your maintenance is a lot better than with residential. Residential things fall through the cracks. Typically commercial you find that the curb appeal is important to those people. Hepper: I have got a question, Becky, rf any of parcels along Overland Road wouldn't sell or be built on for a couple of years, for example out along E. 1st Street and Meridian out here by McDonalds and stuff there are some vacant parcels there that are just now getting built in after a couple of years. If those weren't built on for a couple of years then that particular strip of landscaping would not be finished. Bowcutt: That would be correct and that would be an issue that you obviously would have to look at. Hepper: I think that is what we are trying to look at is some way of getting it all done and then when it is built they can maybe be responsible for their own maintenance. That would be my own suggestion. Bowcutt: That is fair, if the Commission deems that more acceptable then obviously. Hepper: Do you know if you have got occupants for those pieces of property, let them do it if not the developer is the owner of that property I think that whole thing should be developed at one time otherwise you are going to have gaps in the development. One lot will be done, one lot won't and one lot will. Bowcutt: 1 can't deny that, chances are that most likely wilt happen. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 23 Hepper: It could take a year or two before all the lots are sold out. Is that more or less your question too? Rountree: That is my concern. Johnson: This document, this paper that Becky submitted for the record this is a draft copy, I wouldn't expect you to digest all seven pages of this at a sitting. But this won't actually go before ACHD until November 29th. I need to point that out for the record that this is a draft report of what is proposed. Does anyone else have any questions or comments? What would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we pass this application onto City Council with a favorable recommendation provided there aren't any major changes in the recommendations from ACHD and that the landscaping be included as part of the development of the subdivision. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass this on to City Council with the conditions stated by Commissioner Rountree, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 10, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY BOB NAHAS: Johnson: We have received a submittal from the applicant asking us to table this item again. We should table it to a date certain they have not requested a specific date. The next meeting would be the twelfth of December. Shearer: I move we table this until December 12 meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we table item #4 at the applicant's request until our next scheduled meeting December 12, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BILL HOWELL: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 24 Johnson: You have the findings of fact and you have read, are there any questions, is there any discussion, are there any editorial changes that need to be made. I believe there are a couple of them things that need to be corrected, is that true Mr. Crookston? Crookston: That is true. I don't have them charted in my copy but in reference to the square footage of the building that would be on the property. On paragraph 8 on page 3, the third, dealing with the second line of that paragraph says that future parcel consisting of 8.49 acres, I am sorry that is not the one. On page 2, paragraph 2, in the fourth line of the paragraph, it starts out that on the 20 acre parcel which is approximately 39,825 square feet I would just strike which is approximately 39,825 feet. Also on that same page and paragraph four, in the fifth line at the end where it says the Jacksons travel center, I would put Locust View Heights Subdivision and strike the rest of the entire paragraph. On page 3, paragraph 7, Shari has some comments that I think correct, it states in the fifth line, starting at the (inaudible) compatible with other industrial facilities adjacent to the project, that should be not compatible. It goes (inaudible) with adjacent development that should be would not be harmonious. (Inaudible) because it is a representation as to what the applicants annexation and zoning application stated. So it is worded correctly. (inaudible) Johnson: So just strike the last two corrections? Crookston: Correct, I would leave the entire, the paragraph as it is entirely. Johnson: Is there anything else in there? (End of Tape) Crookston: (Inaudible) it should say (inaudible) full service leases (inaudible). On page 6 in the paragraph that is numbered 7 it should say Ada County Highway District rather than Ada County Health District. In paragraph 10 toward the bottom of the page, it says (inaudible) that should be down it is in the paragraph. On page seven in paragraph twelve the sixth line says impact of should say impact or. On page 9, approximately in the middle of the paragraph there is a (inaudible) the line starts eastern property boundary which need should be needs. On page 11, where it says, I believe it says easter should be eastern Eagle Road light industrial. Johnson: Item 3.5 right? Crookston: That is correct. On page 12, in the middle of the page it says neighborhood (inaudible) identity. On page 18, paragraph C, it says the City Council that should be the Planning and Zoning Commission. That is all the changes that Shari and I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 25 Johnson: Thanks Wayne, anybody else have any changes or any comments? What would you like to do with these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved by Commissioner Rountree, second by Commissioner Shearer that the findings of fact as prepared be approved with corrections so noted, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby recommends to the City Council that the property set forth in the application not be annexed and zoned and therefore no conditional use permit be granted. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that the Planning and Zoning commission pass a recommendation onto the City Council not to annex and not to permit the conditional use application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR APRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: Johnson: 1 will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Ted Hutchinson, 109 S. 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission this is a 3 lot commercial subdivision that is currently under a development agreement from the City of Meridian. This is the Playground, it is an RV park and has a golf driving range that are currently Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 26 developed. What we are doing is platting 3 lots, one lot would contain the RV park, one lot will contain the driving range, and then there will be a third lot in the middle subject to future development. That development will be in accordance with the provisions of the City of Meridian zoning ordinance and the requirements of the development agreement that were in place. I have reviewed the comments from your City staff and have no problem with those. It looks like most of these are, some of the comments are geared more toward the actual development rather than the ground and basically at this time all we are doing is platting the ground we are not proposing any additional development. With that are there any questions of the Commission that I can answer? Hepper: Was this not platted before? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hepper not it was not, it was developed under I believe, we didn't handle the application when it was approved or presented to the City but it was processed either from a conditional use or planned development. So there is a development agreement that is in place on this particular site. Hepper: (Inaudible) incorporating all three of those parcels into one. Hutchinson: What we are doing is separating one parcel of land, we are now separating that into 3 separate lots with one use on each lot. The RV park on one lot, the middle lot that will be developed in the future and then the driving range lot. Hepper: And you don't have a proposed use for the middle lot? Hutchinson: I don't know that they have one right now. I know there was mention of something in the previous application a sports related use. We are not proposing anything at this time. We are just platting the ground and if the owner decides to sell that or develop it themselves then a development application will have to come forward to you for your approval. Hepper: So you would be willing to go with a conditional use permit on that middle piece of property requirement for a conditional use? Hutchinson: I believe that is what is in place at this time. Rountree: How do you propose to access that third lot? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, when we originally presented this to the Highway District we were looking at doing a shared access. The owners have a buyer for the lot that contains the driving range. We are taking that back to the Highway District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 27 and asking for a third access. We have over 1300 feet of Frontage on Overland Road. There is no real conflict with any use to the south of this that should create a problem so we are going to propose a third access otherwise it would be a shared access with cross access easement for the access on Overland Road from the 2 lots. Rountree: Nothing from Locust Grove? Hutchinson: We are not proposing anything from Locust Grove. The Locust Grove frontage is completely development right now with the RV lot. There is no access, no direct access onto Locust Grove Road. The Highway District has asked our client to consider that in the future if they put an overpass over I-84 that it will create a problem for that parcel to the north. They have asked our client to consider allowing some type of joint access assuming that the RV park may be developed into something else. That would be only at the time some time after they do an overpass there. At this point we have no access onto Locust Grove Road. Johnson: Any other questions of the applicant? Hepper: Have you seen the comments from Shari? Hutchinson: Yes I have. Hepper: Do you have a problem with any of those? Hutchinson: No, in fact we appreciate Shari's comment at the bottom where we did ask this as a preliminary final and then checking with Shari prior to submitting this I was unsure of the procedure for a preliminary and final. When I contacted her either we had mis- communication or something was dropped and we will get her the 30 copies of the final plat as quickly as I can get them drafted so that we can go forward. The proposal itself I did and it does comply with the provisions in the ordinance to process this is as a preliminary~nal. But no, like I say most of those issues are directly related to development rather than the subdivision of ground. We have no problems with them. Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there someone from the audience that would like to address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a preliminary plat so it does not require findings of fact, it is your action what would you like to do? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we pass on a favorable recommendation to City Council for the preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 28 Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council regarding the preliminaryffinal plat for the playground subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I am here to discuss a modification of a plat that was approved about a year and a half ago. The first thing that I would like to do is pass out a little illustration of what we are discussing and then I will use the original concept map to discuss it with you. The original annexation and zoning of this 40 acre parcel was an R-8. The preliminary plat that was approved when I recounted I counted 152 it was either 152 or 153 lots. Basically a straight forward subdivision with the minimum 6500 square foot lots. As originally proposed there was a common area strip along the south boundary that was adjacent to the Fothergill subdivision in which it was proposed to realign the Finch Lateral and place a bicycle pathway system. This particular enlargement illustrated the concept. At the time that it was presented to Nampa Meridian they had no difficulty with the relocation but they made no commitment with respect to a pathway in that area. In fact, when the construction plans were designed for that relocation with the single crossing of Arrow Wood Way that connects this project to Fothergill the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District specifically disapproved any pathway system within their easement area. In addition when the construction actually began the adjacent property owners became concerned about the location and the depth of that particular facility. A meeting was held between property owners from Fothergill Subdivision and the developer and Mayor Kingsford, Councilman Walt Morrow, City Engineer Gary Smith. I would like to present to the Commission as well copies of the minutes and the memorandum of understanding an agreement that resulted from that. Johnson: Is that any different from this one. I think we all have that, I made copies for everyone. Wardle: During that particular discussion it was first noted that the relocation plans to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 29 construct the Finch Lateral in that open configuration along the South Boundary had actually been approved. It was made clear that with respect to that item the project could go forward. However the residents did come to a City Council hearing in May of 1995 and a meeting followed that discussion with the Council. The conclusions that were drawn since you all have then just in brief re-statement of the fact that Brighton could come back with up to eight additional residential lots in an amended preliminary plat. That Brighton would the the South Slough or Finch Lateral in accordance. That they would also develop and maintain an area along that corridor for a tot lot and basketball court. Now the preliminary plat that was submitted accomplishes those items. We are talking about a total of 11 lots but among those 11 that there are 2 that were part of the original preliminary plat. One of the 11 lots is designated for the tot lot area that would have some playground equipment and a basketball court and the area is sufficient in size to provide that. It would also be available of residents of both project areas. that particular location is right here. That then leaves eight additional single family lots, all of which exceed 8,000 square feet. Whereas the zone itself would allow lots as small as 6500 square feet. The lots are all 80 plus feet deep and more than or 100 feet or more width. We simply come to you asking for your favorable consideration based on the fact that all parties of concern to this matter, the adjacent property owners in Fothergill Brighton Corporation using the good offices of the City to mediate the concerns did come to a conclusion. That conclusion was to the the lateral to put lots in and to also maintain an opportunity for recreation and a tot lot configuration. The street system remains as originally platted. Nothing else changes except the matter of putting that ditch in a tile. 1 would respond to any questions the Commission may have. We ask you to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council to allow this change. Johnson: Thank you Mike, any questions of Mr. Wardle? Rountree: Gary, our subdivision ordinances do not allow any inclusion of easement for the calculation of square footage for Tots is that correct? Smith: If it is an open ditch I believe that is correct yes. If it is a tiled ditch then it is included. Rountree: It is included, okay. Crookston: I would like to ask a question? What is the status of the ditch along the west boundary? Wardle: I believe the west boundary there is a drain along that property line it is on the adjacent property and it remains as is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 30 Crookston: I believe that our ordinance indicates that if it is adjancent to the property that the tiling ordinance still applies. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grookston this is not a lateral, this is a drain that services that area and that was not a matter that was discussed or made part of the original consideration. That is a new action that you are raising and it is on the adjacent property. Hepper: If it is a drain ditch it wouldn't have to be? Crookston Yes, it is any waterway. Hepper: Except drains I thought. Crookston: It actually applies to all of them. We have not required the Nine Mile Drain, Five Mile Drain to be tiled. But it does apply to them. ft is my understanding this is not of the nature of the Nine Mile Drain. Hepper: (Inaudible) Crookston: I believe it would, Gary you have had some dealings with this have you not? Smith: Yes, the applicant has applied for a variance from tiling that ditch, that is in the process right now. Wardle: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Crookston I was not aware of the status of that particular item. Crookston: How wide are these 9 or 10 lots on the southern portion? (Inaudible) Wardle: They range from approximately 83 feet in depth and it increases because the configuration of that property expands a little bit as you go to the west and they run from 100 feet in width up to 103 plus, I guess there is one that is 97 feet by roughly 87. Crookston: And you are tiling the Finch Lateral is that correct? Wardle: Yes, the Finch Lateral will be tiled right along the street right of way line in this location. I believe the preliminary plat identified that. Hepper: I have a question on this original version here on the Finch Lateral shows a depth of those lots approximately 80 feet and then it shows the Finch Lateral going just a little off center of right down the center of those lots. Does that leave room to build homes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 31 there without building right on top of the tiled ditch. Would that be located over to the back property line? Wardle: Mr. Hepper, may I see, illustrate what you are talking about on the original. Hepper: On the original, the width is 80 feet right there but the ditch is almost dead center. Wardle: Mr. Hepper, that was the original preliminary plat but that is not where the Finch Lateral was. They did excavate for that relocation but when the issue came up they never did complete the relocation. So that ditch is not served for that purpose as it was illustrated. That is what was intended that will not be the case. So instead of being in that center area it will be tiled up along the roadway right of way itself. I think this illustrates it better, this is the actually original location. Hepper: But on the bottom plat where will it be relocated to? Wardle: It will be relocated approximately, it is within a 20 foot easement that will fall along the property line and it will be the standard set back anyway. I am guessing dimensional it is probably 5 feet off the property line. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: What is a tot lot? Wardle: Well we assume it appeals to the younger generation. But it will have playground equipment and there would also be a basketball court facility. Rountree: Is that a full court, half course, 1/4 court. Wardle: Half court. Rountree: Would the lot be fenced? Wardle: The tot lot area? Rountree: Yes Wardle: I don't know that we actually have a detailed layout of that facility as of yet whether it would be fenced or not I don't know. Rountree: And the care and maintenance of that facility would be the responsibility of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 32 homeowner. Wardle: That is correct. Crookston: It was my understanding that was supposed to be an entire basketball court. I thought (inaudible) Wardle: Perhaps Mr. Turnbull would be more willing to come and address that particular subject. You can see form the list of attendees I was not there when the issue was discussed. David Turnbull, was sworn by the City Attorney. Turnbull: We have submitted a layout for that property, it includes a tot lot with, in fact I believe we submitted a photograph of the type of playground equipment we intend to buy that is the same as provided in the Mill Creek Subdivision on Overland and Maple Grove that was done by Bryce Peterson. The tot lot equipment is constructed by a company I believe out of Murtaugh, 1 don't remember the exact location but somewhere in south central Idaho. Fairly substantial with the timbers and so forth. The basketball court is a half court, actually we enlarged it larger than you would find in most of these tot lot type situations, provide for a fu113 point circle and some perimeter shooting. It is not a full court basketball court, I don't think we want to asphalt the whole area but we did want to provide that recreational opportunity. Pertaining to fencing, we have situated this in the middle of a stretch of common area grass area that some 300 feet long, it would be appropriate to have fencing in the rear of the property. I don't know that we want to fence the whole thing in and make it a little, you know how much we want to enclose that in when it already sits in the middle of a fairly wide common area parcel. That was not something that was addressed as far as entire perimeter fencing. Crookston: It was my understanding that the basketball court was to be a full court. Turnbull: Where did you receive that understanding? Crookston: Dave I would have to go back and look at the record, but that is what I call excuse me that is what I recall was stated when we were discussing this I don't know back in (inaudible). Turnbull: Well, that was, I don't even know if that is desirable. This is a typical tot lot neighborhood situation that you find in many neighborhoods where you have a half court basketball court situation. Like I said I would prefer to provide some more green areas as well but that. Like I said that is what we had envisioned and what we proposed. I suppose Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 33 you could talk to Walt or Councilman Morrow and Mayor Kingsford as the two representative of the City were in the meeting with the neighbors. But that is what we had envisioned. Crookston: I don't recall that the basketball court was supposed to be part of the tot lot at all. As I recall they were two separate ideas. A basketball court and a tot lot. Turnbull: That is true in a common area. They were going to exist side by side. Crookston: I don't recall that, that could be the way it is, but I recall them being two basically separate facilities and a full basketball court. I will have to go back and look at my notes and what record I do have. Johnson: Okay, moving on, any other questions here? Thanks David, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Shearer: Jim, I would have a question of Shari on this bike path. Johnson: Let's see if someone else wants to address the Commission first. Amy Duenas, Fothergill Pointe, was sworn by the City Attorney. Duenas: I live in Fothergill Pointe which is currently my property line is about five to 10 feet from where they have originally decided to relocate this Finch Lateral. I spoke on behalf earlier the last time we met on behalf of my neighborhood of our concerns of having an open lateral with so many small children around. Our neighborhood a lot of the surrounding neighborhoods primarily are for first time home buyers which means most of them are going to have small young children. Especially right in this area that we live in almost every house has at least one child. We went around to all the neighbors within blocks of there and talked to all of them about what was going on. That there was going to be this open ditch and our response to them or when we talked to them we asked for a response from them. What they would like to see done with the ditch and everyone wanted it to be tiled for the safety of their children. So that is our concern that it is tiled so that the children will be safe, that is our first and foremost important thing. With this water from what we have understood it would be pretty swift moving water if it was left open. Which causes a real hazard and I think we need to keep in mind the safety of our kids. So, that is all I have to say, thanks. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Michelle Noll, 648 E. Hawk, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 34 Noll: I basically have the same thing to say that she does that our children are the biggest concern here and when we bought our lot there was nothing on the plat showing that there was a ditch there. The day that we closed they dug a 9 foot ditch five feet from our property line which I think was a mistake, it was a mistake. We really want to see it tiled. With Nampa Meridian saying that it can't be a bike path along, there is really no reason to have a ditch with fast moving water right between 2 subdivisions. A tot lot would just much better meet the needs of the two subdivisions. I guess we would hope that if they decided not to that it would be fenced so the children can be safe. I think that is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Mr. Shearer, you had a question of Shari Stiles? Shearer: I would like to ask Shari where we are at on the bike path and has the irrigation company stopped the bike path on all subdivisions through that section or are we blocking off the bike path in the middle of the section, what is our situation here? Stiles: Commissioner Shearer, we do have a meeting scheduled tomorrow Gary Smith and myself and their attorney regarding the bike paths. I have never seen anything from Nampa Meridian saying they denied any path along this stretch. They are desirous of us completing our license agreement so we can work out these agreements on each separate pathway. To the east of this property the Slough is open and has at least 8 to 10 feet of a pathway area on each side of this blue. The area to the west has not yet come into the City for development. So we have not yet required anything there. Shearer: Isn't John Ewing's subdivision on the west end of that? Stiles: Where the South Slough comes, goes to the west of Bedford Place has not been annexed into the City yet. What he has done has been on the Jackson stub drain as far as landscaping and his pathway. Johnson: On the information submitted by the applicant, incomplete document by license agreement page 11, I think you have a copy of that item 10 (inaudible) the construction plans identified in paragraph A of this exhibit indicate that the licensee intends to construct a bike path within the District's easement for the Finch Lateral. The district does not, by entering into this agreement with licensee license approved authorize or acquiesce construction of bike path or any bike path within the District's easement for the Finch Lateral. As I say that is an incomplete document but I assume that is from Meridian irrigation. Shearer: (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 35 Johnson: Any further questions? One last shot, anyone else from the public? Would the applicant like to respond to anything? Wardle: I think this matter could be clearly passed on to the City Council where the specific information relative to this pathway system according to the Mayor and Mr. Morrow they have not achieved any success with Nampa Meridian in providing this system component and in fact information that I have received is that they would consider bike paths along the drains which are not the fast moving systems but not along the laterals. If there was ever a concem about access one thing that has to happen for the sake of maintenance there is an access point out both ends of this particular system for Nampa Meridian to get to the lateral where it is not tiled. And so there is a physical connection if such a system ever came into being but it looks very doubtful. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? If not then I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a request on a preliminary plat, recommendation to the City Council? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add or ask a question that we didn't receive any information from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on this plat. At least I don't have anything in my file. One of the things that I didn't include or have my assistant include on this comments to you was the disposition of the 80 foot Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement within which is located a public road way. Also typically along the fronts of the lots a 10 foot permanent utility easement is granted in the platting of land for utilities such as power, telephone, gas. Location of transformers, location of water meters and I think we need to be in concert with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District as to the use within this 80 foot easement. Number 1 there is a public road within that easement so it is not an exclusive easement. Number 2, the 10 foot easement along the fronts of the lots is typically a utility easement for all utilities. We just need to be sure that this is a workable easement for all parties concerned. That hasn't been transmitted to you from my department and I just wanted to have that of record. Johnson: Thank you Gary. This has gone on for quite awhile this application. Mr. Wardle, do you have anything in writing from Nampa Irrigation on this application? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, not specifically, but let me just illustrate exactly the same situation with respect to easement and public right of way exists along the roadway that bisects the property. The Onweiller Lateral goes through this area that has a similar easement. In their approval of that subdivision plat and the granting of a license agreement it accommodates the road and the necessary public utilities. So we will be doing virtually a carbon copy of that easement situation in this location as was accomplished here for the Onweiler, virtually the same. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 36 Johnson: Thank you, it would occur to me we could move this onto the City with conditions you know on those items of question. What would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we pass this preliminary plat onto the City Council with a favorable recommendation conditioned on resolving the issues of the City Engineer and potential issues that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District may have pursuant to the utility easement. Hepper:Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation for the preliminary plat onto the City Council as so stated by Commissioner Rountree, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will recess for 10 minutes. TEN MINUTE RECESS Johnson: Let's call the meeting back to order please. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask that the representative or the applicant can address the Commission. Dirk Marcum, HC 33 Box 1080, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Marcum: Okay, we are just, here is a look at our project over here that we are proposing on Franklin Road and 10th. We are asking for a conditional use permit for an R.V. repair service, fight automotive and R.V. repair service. This building here which you can see is designed and it is approximately 110 foot back from Franklin. (End of Tape) We got this list here and I can start going over them. We have already submitted a variance request for Eight Mile Lateral and that is scheduled for the City Council on December 5th. I am sure you guys have these lists. Johnson: We do and we also have your letter dated today or actually it is from Hubble Engineering that addresses specifically each request. I don't know if you have seen that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 37 or not. We just got that today so we, I hope they have all matched that up with (inaudible). Marcum: If you want me to run through them I sure can. Johnson: I think we can just ask the Commission if they have any questions of you at this point unless you want to elaborate more on your project? Marcum: It is fairly simple, if there are any questions, if the list is satisfactory otherwise I can go over any of the comments there. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Marcum? Alidjani: Mr. Marcum, how do you define light automotive? Marcum: What he actually does is he just repairs motor homes and it will be done all inside. Camp trailers, beds, goes with the areas use there pretty much. He repairs the cabinets and interiors and metal sheeting on them. Just, he works for insurance companies and mainly repairs their mobile homes. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Marcum: No, none of that. If they bring them in, I guess the reason we kind of picked this area is because across the street there is an auto body shop right up the street about another 100 feet is a brake and alignment shop. All the uses, there is a mini storage right behind it there, and there is a mini storage right down the street. So all those uses right there kind of coincide that it would fit into the area. Also, the other tenant that we have got in the building lined up there, he does window tinting so it is a light use is what we have lined out. Alidjani: So it would be like a damaged interior or exterior but it would have nothing to do with the drive train of automobiles or R.V.'s? Marcum: I don't really know, he doesn't do brakes or doesn't do painting, auto body work so as far as t know it would just be something light. I guess they repack wheel bearings and stuff probably because I know that trailers that is a part of it. They do wiring, lights wiring and at this point I think he said that at most there would be possibly he figured for him around 6 employees would be the most. Which you can see we have excessive parking and the back is real secure and protected area back here. It is setback so it will be completely out of view, fenced and all paved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 38 Hepper: Would he have a paint booth? Marcum: No, no painting. Rountree: You indicated there would be another use there and window tinting, how many other uses do you anticipate in that building? Marcum: At this point there might be, there is approximately maybe a 1000 square feet available but he thinks he will just take it anyway, that is what he is saying. They just (inaudible) it has big garage doors in the back. The front is a store look design, it has windows and doors, there are no garage doors in the front of the building. It is an office building looking front and back. So everything will be pulled around the back and come in, there are no garage doors in the front of it. They will just come around the back and they work on the vehicles on the inside. Rountree: What are the hours of operation? Marcum: It is all interior work so the hours of operation on that kind of stuff people don't bring their vehicles in to be repaired only from 8 normal store hours is when people come for repairs. It is not a 24 hour business or anything like that. Hepper: You don't have a front plat or anything of the building do you? Marcum: I think she sent it in the little package of the building, did you send the front look, no, it, to give you an idea it is a Van Auker, have you seen the Van Auker buildings, like as you get off the freeway on Broadway, have you seen how those buildings look with the windows across them and the doors. Well, it has a stucco, they are (inaudible) real nice Hepper: Would there be any over hangs or gable ends or features on (inaudible) Marcum: Pretty much rectangular, there is going to be paint designs around the middle part of it, the windows is all the dressing. There will be windows on the different, there are a couple of sets of windows. You would have to see the windows, we actually have the building designed but I thought it was shipped to you in the package but I didn't realize that it wasn't. So I can produce that. Hepper: We really don't have a plan review other than staff. There has been some concern in the past about some of the buildings put up that are just square rectangular boxes with no features. Where that is a main entryway, corridor coming into the town. Back in a subdivision some place that may be a little different, but t think where it is going to front right on Franklin Road there should have some features on Franklin Road to break it up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 39 rather than just a blank wall. Marcum: Well, as you can see on this we have landscaped clear around a huge area around this corner. So, there is a lot of landscaping, lots of parking and then, like I say everything is accessed to the rear. The front of the building is just office building look is what it is. It is not, it doesn't look like your typical mechanical shop. It is an office building look. Johnson: Has there been any discussion about the possibility of this being an impound area for anything? Marcum: No Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Dirk, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Elaine Williams Schlekeway, 1200 West Franklin, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schlekeway: Gentlemen, I own and have for the past 42 years owned 33 acres of ground and buildings fronting on Franklin Road. The proposal the man before me just submitted would border my property and very close to my house. My house sits fairly close to the new proposal and frankly gentlemen I am not real enthused about it. Since my house is 50 feet long on that side and I have 5 windows which is the most I have on any side of my house and they would all be facing into these storage sheds. I don't have any idea how tall they would be because I went yesterday to the City Hafl and looked at their map that they had submitted. It looked there are about 7 real long buildings on this small piece of ground. It looked like they were going to be pretty close to my fence line which isn't very far from my house. I noticed something else that was a 35 foot setback from Franklin Road, it said per ordinance. Does this take into consideration the widening of Franklin Road to 5 lanes by the Ada County Highway Department which is supposed to take place in the next few years. If so where do you measure from, the middle of the road or the edge of the proposed new 5 foot sidewalk on back for that 35 feet. Also, is there any mention of a fence or lighting that would be shining in my windows on this new project. I don't mind storage sheds because I have already got some across from my property now. But they are farther back, they are a long ways from the house. This would be just adjacent to the house. If they could be set back at least some so 1 could see out I would appreciate it. Johnson: Have you personally had any discussion with the applicant? Schlekeway: No, no one has come to see me. I just got your letter and responded to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 40 Johnson: Where is your house on the map? (Inaudible) Johnson: We need to get it on the record so if you could use the mic and move it up there, we have to type all of this and she won't be able to pick it up. Marcum: Okay, I was just showing her here, her house is located on here, so you can see here it shows this is they have their easement already set in there, we have our 35 foot ordinance for the landscaping so you can see where her house sits. Schlekeway: Well, I see where this building is, it comes right in the middle of my house. Johnson: What is the distance there where your finger is about there Dirk, do you have an idea? Marcum: If you were back to here it would be behind your house and that is 30 more feet, see how these are behind. Schlekeway: Yes, but not this one, this is very close to this. This is the fence line here, this is very close. Johnson: What is the setback for the property line there Dirk on the east side or the west side? Marcum: It is ten feet, there are ten feet there is no access or lighting back here it is landscaped and there will be (inaudible). Johnson: Where is the nearest lighting? Marcum: The nearest lighting would be on this face side dim low lighting. So this would be completely blocked. Johnson: Is there any free standing lighting anywhere in there? Marcum: No, nothing standing. Johnson: All come off the building. Schlekeway: Excuse me, there are storage sheds out in this area right now. And they have lighting back here, I can even get that shining up in my windows. That is why I was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 41 more concerned about these ones being so close. I would like to know how high because on the map it didn't say or I couldn't see. Marcum: They are 8 foot 3 I think. Schlekeay: This building here is only eight feet? Marcum: Yes, 8 feet 3, the 20 foot deep ones are only 8 feet 3, I guess the pitch of the roof is sloped up a little but but it is only 8 feet 3 to the back. Schlekeay: You mean the wall is just 8 feet but how high would it be including the roof? Marcum: I would have to look at the plan to tell you but I know 8 foot 3 Johnson: Well you have to have some pitch on the roof so you probably have another 2 feet. Marcum: (Inaudible) Schlekeway: And how high are these going to be? Marcum: Some of them will vary a little bit the pitch but these are so far away from you, you can see that you would never (inaudible), they are not, these are a long ways away from you, 30, 40, 60 feet more this building here. I can pull this back a little bit. Schlekeway: (Inaudible) Johnson: It looks to me like you guys can work something out, I know we are missing some of this on the tape. Schlekeway: (inaudible) that is my view of the mountains and the city and everything that I have been looking at. Johnson: I would certainly recommend that you two get together and I think it would probably work out. Marcum: This here that wouldn't be a problem you guys, you can just see that one building (inaudible) and that is just the way they drew them. Schlekeway: Where are you measuring your 35 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 42 Johnson: We can answer that through Gary Smith he will tell us what has to be done. Do you have anything else to add Elaine? Schlekeway: No Johnson: Anyone else? Clyde Steinbaugh, 1905 East Paradise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Steinbaugh: I just wanted to ask is your access going to be on NW 10th or are you going to have access on Franklin also? Johnson: Clyde you have to address your questions to the Commission and we will get your answer otherwise (inaudible). Steinbaugh: Okay, what I was just going to ask is if the access was going to be on the NW 10th and on Franklin and I was also concerned with the road widening just about the depth of his building off of Franklin Road. Johnson: We will have him address that question when we line things up here. If you have another question let us know later, is that all you have right now? Steinbaugh: That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Gary would you like to talk about this setback, are you familiar with the area. I assume we are talking about a 35 foot set back from the property line right? Stiles: Chairman Johnson, you are talking about a 35 foot landscape setback. Johnson: Right on the front of the property. Stiles: That would be from the required right of way from ACHD which is 45 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Johnson: 45 feet from the centerline Stiles: Of the existing roadway. Johnson: And then an additional 35 foot of landscaping. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 43 Stiles: Beyond that, the sidewalk would be within the 45 feet. Johnson: Thank you Shari, Dirk, did you want to comment on the access question? Marcum: Okay, the access is off of Franklin Road, there is no access off of 10th, it is all landscaped around that corner. Access if off Franklin Road. The setback on the project we actually, the buildings are another, our one building is going to be approximately 110 feet off Franklin Road and the other ones have the 35 foot plus the 30 foot plus the adjusted easement for the new road. So, I guess we have the 65 foot of our property plus the 45 feet I guess. So they are substantially back off of Franklin Road. Johnson: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have anything to add from the public before we close the hearing? I will close the public hearing at this time. Any questions, any discussion? This would require findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Rountree: 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 Johnson: Elaine, you may want to avail yourself of those findings of fact. We will have those at our next meeting and once we act on those then they are available to the public. So our next meeting is the 12th of December and then following that we will have those available for you. What that does is incorporates the testimony from this evening plus where we stand in accordance with our ordinances and the desires. ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION BY DENNIS AND JANET BUTTERFIELD: Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I will abstain from this project since it is adjacent to my property. Johnson: Do you want to remove yourself from the podium please. Dennis Butterfield, 2833 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alidjani: Counselor, I also received a letter from the City owning the school property, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 44 would I have conflict of interest? Crookston: Is that within 300 feet? Alidjani: One corner of my property is within the 300 feet and that is at 200 East Carlton, the back portion of the post office is parallel to my line of property. Crookston: You have under the ethics in government law you have the requirement to disclose that the Commission and if the Commission desires you step down if they say so, if they say it is not a big enough deal they can say you can preside. So, the request is to the Commission. Alidjani: Commission I have disclosed the possibility of a conflict of interest. Johnson: Do you think that would affect your decision or judgement in this issue? Alidjani: I don't think so. Johnson: Then we will consider that not to be a conflict of interest at this time. Crookston: I think you need to vote. Johnson: I never get to make a decision here, it really gets frustrating. It is kind of like leading the choir you never get to sing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Commission allows you to make a decision on this. Johnson: Okay, we have a motion is there a second? Hepper: Second Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: You can stick around Moe. Buttertield: Okay, we bought that property back in 1989 I believe and we found it necessary to get some zoning done on it so that we could have our plumbing shop over there. We went through the motions of having it zoned and we ended up with a C-C Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 45 zoning and we didn't really realize how restrictive it was at the time. Here we are, we are here to apply for some conditional use. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about the history of that property. We had Meridian Plumbing over there, we outgrew the property ourselves. And then we rented it to another competitor pluming company and they had quite a bit of traffic over there. They were going 24 hours a day. I just wanted to contrast what we had there to what John Biss is proposing here. It is a small business like a one or two man shop. If you have ever watched a mechanic shop of that size you are going to have a fairly slow rate of traffic in and out of there. So it is a step up in that way. We have done some work on the building recently and I don't know that it has a lot of bearing with what you guys are considering here. We tried to put it in a first class condition. (Inaudible) the walls in there are dressed up, we did some work on the lighting, it is a nice building. We have talked with John on various occasions and indicated we want it to be kept in first class condition. He is in agreeance with that. We selected John because we have known him for over 10 years, we have dealt with him in his, He was working with Big- O. He will talk a little more about himself in a minute. We considered him to be to have good character, good work ethic and we have confidence in him that he will be a real asset to the Meridian business community. That is basically what I had. Johnson: Any questions of Dennis? For the record I want to point out for you that if you haven't received it or haven't noticed it there is a letter of objection dated November 13 from E. Faye Brewer Buchanan opposing this application, this conditional use permit. John Biss, 7504 Lima Drive, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney. Biss: My business is just a small 2 man shop. Me and a part time helper is going to do it. All I do is basically alignment and brakes, most cars are in and out in a couple of hours. There will be an occasional car that is there a little longer than that but for the most part any major engine work that type of stuff that involves tearing a car apart and leaving it apart for weeks isn't' going to happen, it isn't what I want to do. I have been I have worked for Big-0 tire for 16 years, I have probably worked on everybody's care here at least once or twice. I do professional work, I plan on being in business hopefully for another 20 years and hopefully I have no problem continue doing that. I don't have any questions but 1 would sure like to answer any that you have. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Biss? Rountree: What do you propose your hours of operation? Biss: I have to advertise, I am going to advertise hours between 8 and 5 during the week and Saturdays it is going to be variable probably 8 to noon on Saturdays. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 46 Rountree: (Inaudible) primarily just brake service? Biss: Brake alignment, I am also going to do some minor tune up, spark plugs that type of thing. As far as pulling the heads off the valves no I am not wanting to get into that do some general maintenance of cars. Rotate some tires, mount and balance a couple tires now and again. Hepper: Did you see the comments from the Fire Chief, do you have any welding equipment or cutting torches? Biss: I do and I don't have to use them very often only occasionally and I guess if it is a problem we can remove those. Hepper: Well, he just had a comment there that you might need to have the building fire sprinkled. Personally I wouldn't think so but I am not the Fire Marshall. Biss: I hope not, I would like to leave those there. Hepper: You may have to clear that up with him. Biss: I am assuming he will come by and address that. Alidjani: Are you utilizing any portion of the house in front or strictly you are going to stay on the back, needless to say I am very familiar with that property. Biss: Just the shop in the back is all I am using, nothing in front. The sign is part of the business but the sign is in front. Johnson: I assume you have read these comments. The one specifically from the Sewer department do you recall that. They talk about pre-treatment prior to sewer use of certain materials what is your response to that? Biss: I am not 100% certain of what they are talking about. I am hoping they will come and address me about that and fix anything that needs to be fixed if anything needs to be fixed. Johnson: I think they are talking about hazardous waste or grease and would get into, it might require a sediment trap is one of the comments they made. But you haven't spoken to them directly? Biss: No Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 47 Johnson: Anyone else have any questions of John? Thanks John, is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this application? Any comments from staff other than those we already have in writing? I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a request for a conditional use permit, this would require findings of fact. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I would make a motion we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application by Dennis and Janet Butterfield, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1 ACRE TO C-G FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: Johnson: So we will handle items 10 and 11 at this time, I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to come forward and address the Commission or his representative. Chuck Elliott, 424 Pebble Beach Way, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elliott: This will be a vinyl fencing and decking company, wholesale and retail. Due to the hour are there any questions on the application? Johnson: This is early for us. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Elliott? I assume you have reviewed the comments. Have you looked at the November 8 letter from Bruce Freckleton the City Engineer and do you have any comments regarding those? Elliott: Yes I have, item #1 I know that Pinnacle Engineering is in the process of re-doing the markings on the property. Johnson: Any other comments on those? Elliott: No, we plan, I don't see any problems with any of the recommendations. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 48 Hepper: What about the one from Shari Stiles? Did you get that one? Elliott: I don't see any problems with any of these either. The only one with the handicapped we do plan on moving the handicapped back closer to the door and is should be, the cement pad and it will be available for handicap purposes. Hepper: Ada County Highway District had a comment about something about some cross street ties? Elliott: Yes, we will coordinate those recommendations into our landscape plan. Hepper: I wasn't sure if that was a requirement or a comment by them. Elliott: It looked like it was a little bit of both. But 1 can understand due to the lot sizes along there and Ada County not wanting accesses every 100 feet. Hepper: So you will try to abide by whatever the recommendation is on that? Elliott: Yes Johnson: Any other questions? Thanks Chuck, this is a public hearing, would anyone else like to address this application before the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We are addressing both items 10 and 11. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact prepared for both items 10 and 11. Hepper: Second Johnson: The motion by Commissioner Rountree, seconded by Commissioner Hepper that the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning request and also for the conditional use permit for Elliott Industrial Company, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 (AMENDED) BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, who here would like to address the Commission on this application? Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 49 Leon Blazer, 3785 Tamarack Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Blazer: Commissioners we have on an approved final plat for Haven Cove No. 5 Subdivision in a configuration this is the configuration that we have. What we have done we were just in the process of starting construction about July of this summer. Some adjacent property owners came forth and so we wanted to find out the interest the adjacent property owners had and rf there were any commonality of interest in our development. What is really involved is a situation gentlemen where we are leaving the northern portion of the plat the same and changing the front southern portion of Pine Street in the original development we have some less desirable lots in this configuration. This by the way the ground lays. What we are proposing is a moving of the entrance over closer to the Eddy parcel and a re-configuration of the front. Keeping the number of lots the exact same. The reason we are doing this is to match and maximize the Eddy parcel and the parcel that is further west and sort of masters designing a flow that would fit both parcels. And so what we are asking for is an amendment of the approved plat that we have now to this configuration. This portion is the portion that changes. This culdesac and this culdesac in the original plat, so there really wasn't any tie in and it really affected Mr. Eddy's property in the kind of entrances that he would have had. He would have had an entrance in here that would have been much less favorable. So that is the situation. Then following this application you will be asked regarding Haven Cove No. 6 which is this little parcel right here on the northern end which interconnects Haven Cove No. 4, Haven Cove No. 5 and this is called Have Cove No. 7 at some future time, but the Eddy parcel. That is the overall layout then that we are talking about. Hepper: Could you address the landscaping along Pine Street? What you intend to do with that? Blazer: We have a 20 foot strip and we will have a berm that will be approximately 4 feet high, there will be a five foot fence, there will be trees and shrubs and grass. Hepper: What will be the width of that? Blazer: Twenty feet. Hepper: And you said trees and grass? Blazer: And shrubs. Hepper: Drain rock does not constitute landscaping I want to make sure of that. Blazer: No, it will, on Haven Cove against Cherry Lane we have an approximate 12 foot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 50 planting strip, it will be the exact same, but changed over and widened. The sign will be the same sign on all locations. Johnson: Where is the location of your fence is that on the property line or a setback? Blazer: It is right on the property, it is at the end of the 20 foot setback. Hepper: And that would be a separate lot from the other lots, maintained by the homeowners association. Blazer: Right, the homeowners association also maintains an interconnect 20 foot wide interconnect between Haven 4 and Haven 5 pathway that the sewer accesses. Hepper: Did you see the comments by Shari Stiles? Blazer: Yes I did. Hepper: It says some of the lots don't appear to meet the 8000 minimum square foot area. Blazer: All of the lots will meet the 8000 square feet minimum. Hepper: And the frontages also will meet the minimum requirements. Blazer: Right, she had some comments on number 4, lots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and others which are corner lots and similar to these and other subdivisions are approved for these and that has been the standard approval on short radius turns. So they are less than 80 feet. Then there was one other comment that she had, number 2, pressurized irrigation pump house is shown within the 20 foot landscape strip this is not an appropriate location. The pump house needs to be where the water is and that is the location of the Nampa Meridian irrigation structure at the present time. That is where the water is. Nampa Meridian needs access to their structure because they will be the one maintaining and operating the system. So I don't know, I guess I would need further direction as to where a more appropriate location would be because I don't know. That is where the water is, that is where the pump needs to be. There can be things done with the design of the house and I am sure we can work on that. Hepper: I have seen them where the fence will jog back and the pump house will be recessed back off that 20 foot berm so if a car would run off the road they wouldn't necessarily hit the pump house. Blazer: But then Nampa Meridian would have to acquire additional ground. It is something Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 51 that would have to be worked out and I don't know what you do normally in this situation. That is where the water is. We can put big trees around there or big rocks. So if you have any Johnson: Leon, Shari Stiles question #9, item item #9 and item #10 from the City Engineer's office both ask for a response to their considerations in writing did you follow that? Blazer: We received these yesterday, (inaudible) and there were several other issues that were also important. We met with Gary Smith yesterday afternoon after we did receive this and I think we have resolved any issues that we had. There will be one issue that we will meet with the Highway District tomorrow and resolve. Johnson: For future, that is something that we are going to look at a lot more carefully because we work best from written responses. Blazer: I understand that and again I would just say that we do need a day or two to respond because some of these things need just a couple days to work out. Because we do have to deal with other agencies. Johnson: Well, the alternative is to postpone it for a month and I don't think you want that do you? Blazer: No Johnson: Okay, you need to leave those documents with us. Anybody else have any questions? Hepper: 1 just had a question for Gary or Shari on the lots on the short radius curves, (inaudible). Smith: Commissioner Hepper, Chairman Johnson, Planning and Zoning, this issue came up and I didn't make Shari aware of this and I should have. But some time ago on a subdivision I believe it was Tumble Creek that Stubblefield Development was proposing. The issue on 90 degree corners came up as far as what lot frontage should be because it didn't seem to be practical to require the 80 foot frontage on that type of a radius. I think that is and Mr. Collins can correct me if I am wrong, I believe that is a, well I can't think what it is now, what is the minimum radius on that 90 degree curve, 65 foot to center line on 90 degrees. So actually 90 foot radius out to the outside right of way Tine. When you start trying to require an 80 foot frontage on that typically the tots become very large because they are of a pie shaped nature. (End of Tape) requested their determination or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 52 some input from them some guidance so we could effectively respond to that particular applicant's submittal. My memory serves me that we were, it was suggested by the Council that my department utilized the same requirement as a culdesac lot for frontage on a 90 degree road right of way turn. I need to check that for sure but that is what my memory serves. And of course we still have to deal with, that is on the long side, the long arc of the curve. Crookston: They still have to meet the 8000 square foot minimum Smith: They still have to meet the 8000 square foot correct. They are not a flag lot unless they are a flag unless they are a flag lot unless they resemble a flag. So as I recall 1 think a culdesac is a 40 foot chord minimum. So it is going to depend on what the lot looks like, the developer is going to have a play in this thing too because they have to sell that lot, market that lot for someone to build a house upon it. So that is going to be important for us to have their input. In other words their proposal is going to have to be a realistic approach proposal for that lot so that it is a buildable lot. So we don't have to, I guess we don't have to deal with it anyway but a builder is going to have to deal with it. Anyway that is some background on that. Johnson: Thank you Gary 1 appreciate. This is a public hearing, it is still open is there someone else that would like to address the Commission? Paul Geile, 4717 Willow Lane, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Geile: I am doing a little leg work for my father which owns the 20 acre parcel adjacent to the east of Haven Cove No. 5. It is between Haven Cove 5 and Meridian High School's property. What I had two general areas of concern. One of which is that the proposed changes don't effect the sewer, water or drainage that are entering our property from Haven Cove No. 5 which in looking at the drawings that I have seen so far it does not appear that is the case. That they are in the original condition. If they haven't moved north south the position of the road the sewer and water enter there. The drainage to the west off of our agricultural drainage is taken care of with a pipe. that they intend to run some street drainage through which is another change from the previous drawing that I was aware of. If that happens I wanted to make sure that pipe was kept at its lowest grade to where it enters our property in case we are successful in also draining street drainage into that pipe. Those that I have talked to said that is not a very probably event for either of us. I wanted to just make sure that those critical infrastructure items had not been changed from the previous final plats to this amended plat. The other item that I wanted to clear up was fencing between our property and Haven Cove No. 5. In talking to the Building Department and Shari Stiles I couldn't get definitive language on whether that was a permanent fence or a temporary fence for debris fence. In speaking with Shari Stiles she Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 53 gave me the impression that her language was intended to mean there was a permanent fence that goes down I guess north south between Haven Cove No. 5 and my father's property. I wanted to get some confirmation on what the consistency of that fence was. My father's concerns are that he doesn't intend to develop in the 2 or 3 or 5 year horizon and we will have various homeowners building various types of fencing across the back of that and we have a current individual who leases the property who does have capability to put livestock bads on that 20 acre parcel. What we were concerned with was the mish mash of fences that might occur plus the trespassing that we have had trouble with going from the new divisions to Meridian High School and protection of the livestock. I don't know where that question can be answered but that is the thrust of my input. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Geile? Anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a request for preliminary plat amended. What recommendation would you like to pass onto the City if any? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we send this on with the recommendation to approve it. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Shearer, second by Commissioner Alidjani to send a recommendation for approval to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN EDDY: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is the applicant here to address the Commission at this time. Tom Eddy, 2630 West Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: This is a 1.3 acre subdivision there are going to be five 8000 square foot lots and one approximately 1300 square foot lot. The smaller lot will be adjoined by a bigger lot in Haven Cove No. 5 to make two 8000 square foot lots. Its main purpose is to connect Haven Cove No. 4 and Haven Cove No. 5 to get access and water into Haven Cove No. 5. I would answer any questions you had if you have any. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Eddy, any questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application item #13? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Annexation and zoning request require findings of fact and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 54 conclusions of law if that is your pleasure. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved by Commissioner Hepper, second by Commissioner Rountree to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on item #13 Haven Cove subdivision No. 6 request for annexation and zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6 BY JOHN EDDY: Johnson: I wilt open the public hearing again, Mr. Eddy would you come forward again please. Tom Eddy, 2630 West Pine, was sworn by the City Attomey. Eddy: Again it is a 6 tot subdivision, five of them are 8000 square foot and one is a smaller lot to be adjoined with Haven Cove No. 5. We are asking for a variance on the ten foot easement that goes along the exterior boundary of the subdivision in order to follow the lot line between the two lots so that when the one lot is joined with No. 5 we won't have to vacate that easement. I would be glad to answer any questions you have. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Eddy, any questions of the applicant by the Commissioners? Thank you, anyone from the public that would like to address the preliminary plat? Seeing no one 1 will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table action on this item until we have completed the annexation and zoning request. Shearer: Second Johnson: To a date certain please? Rountree: December 12, 1995. Johnson: Can we have another second I didn't catch the who? C Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 55 Hepper: Second Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Rountree, this item until we act on item #13 annexatio all those in favor? Opposed? i seconded by Commissioner Hepper to table i and zoning until the findings of fact are in, MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I understand we are re-visiting Item #1, is it just #1 or 1 & 2? Rountree: Both Johnson: At this time I will turn the podium over to Commissioner Rountree and hope he gets it done this time. Rountree: You all have had an opportunity to review the previous findings of fact and conclusions at the break and that is I believe item #1. Does anybody have any recommendations or motions, discussion on that particular item? Hepper: I think I had a question for Gary Smith, I believe it was Gary that had a comment on the sewerabitity and the water service to this. Has that been worked out? Smith: Commissioner Hepper I haven't heard from the applicant, we don't have any record of anything from the applicant on the comments that we made previously. I think that was reiterated in the fast review, we just changed the date on the review comments that we have previously prepared. We still don't have any plans as to how this project will be sewered to the west. We know that they are generally speaking as to how it is going to happen but there was nothing shown on the preliminary plat as one item. Rountree: Now we are dealing with the annexation and zoning request at this point. Smith: I'm sorry, the question, I thought I was answering that question. Hepper: You were, it is related, it may not be specific but it is related. What about the water Gary? Smith: The water would have to come from Packard No. 1 subdivision and until such time as the Vern Alleman property would develop which would connect this property to Chamberlain Estates No. 2 the water wouldn't loop back out in a second direction. It would be what we call a dead end feed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 56 Alidjani: So what you are saying Gary at the present time there is no water available? Smith: No, there wouldn't be any water available to this subdivision until Packard No. 1 was developed. Plus the water needs to be brought from the existing Dove Meadows No. 1 Subdivision through the remaining Dove Meadows undeveloped property to get to Packard No. 1 Subdivision as well as a roadway to provide access. Hepper: Has that been resolved? Smith: I don't know, I haven't heard. Or at least, as everyone else has mentioned tonight it has been long enough that I have forgotten if it has. Rountree: Any additional discussion? Shearer: Well, with the sewer it was discussed how the sewer was going to be hooked up. The formal agreement has not been written up yet but I don't see that as a problem for approval of preliminary plat of course it would be a must for the final plat and that. Smith: Commissioner Shearer, one of the things that we continue to battle and 1 have made a note to notify all developers and engineers by letter we are not getting complete preliminary plat submittal. I guess the only thing that I can do is when I get a submittal I am simply going to return it unreviewed if it doesn't show how a subdivision will be served, if it doesn't show irrigation ditches and which ditches are going to be piped and how the water is going to be carried through because we just continue to get the same comments from the public they want to know and it is not shown. We shouldn't even be listening to it I guess from my standpoint. But right now there is no service to this subdivision for water, there is no service to this subdivision for sewer. Speaking to the plat now rather than to the annexation. The ordinance says, the Subdivision and Development Ordinance says that the plat is to show proposed and existing utilities which includes water, sewer, irrigation, bridges, culverts. 1 don't remember all of the items but without water and sewer you don't have much of a subdivision. And of course we don't have the approval of this subdivision is totally dependent upon the development of Packard No. 1. Which in turn is dependent upon the development of access for sewer, water and roadways from Dove Meadows. I don't know what kinds of agreements are in place to allow that to happen but we would have to have all of that information at final plat time along with the development plans. Rountree: Bringing us back to the topic again, you are talking about whether or not this is annexed and or zoned for residential use. We need to press on with either modifying, tabling or resolving the findings of fact on this item. • i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 57 Crookston: I just have a comment on what Gary Smith mentioned and I have mentioned it before. Actually by law it is the preliminary plat that is much more important than the final plat. It is the preliminary plat that is approved that controls the development. I think Gary's comments are very correct that the City should not approve a preliminary plat until everything is done. That is all I have. The final plat is approval of what basically already has been approved in the final plat. Rountree: And again I go back to the item I have, annexation and zoning request. We have findings of fact, you have reviewed them. Do we need to act on those, do we need to modify them, do we need to have them re-drafted. Alidjani: I would rather table it because the way I feel is in 1994 September 13, we approved these findings of fact and we asked at the end if this is not all the conditions are not met this should be denied. And then we have gone over and over a year almost, a year and 2 months and nothing gets done. I know (inaudible) because they lost their access to the Dove Meadows Subdivision it looks to me is I would rather table it for December 12 and a meeting and see if there is anything going to get done by then. Rountree: Spec~cally addressing the items that were included in the preliminary draft, the items that staff has ident~ed, not only on the comments to the annexation and zoning but comments to the preliminary plat, what specifically that we need if we table this? Alidjani: My feeling is we table both items if every other commissioner agrees with me because what do we want to annex and zone (inaudible) approve the preliminary plat they are connected one to the other. Shearer: I would just as soon approve the findings of fact and table the preliminary plat myself. Alidjani: You are saying Jim you want to approve these findings of fact, we already approved them. Shearer: No we haven't we tabled the recommendation. Rountree: But (inaudible) Shearer: (Inaudible) Rountree: Do you have a suggested recommendation? Shearer: I don't care. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 58 Rountree: Does anybody care? Hepper: I don't see how we can pass recommendation on the annexation and zoning if the preliminary plat is not complete. So I think we need to table both, I agree with Moe that we need to have the staffs approval, staff needs to be satisfied with all of their concerns have been met. Rountree: So are you recommending then that this item be tabled until (inaudible) concurrence on information needed on the annexation and zoning? Hepper: Right Rountree: Is that what you are thinking Moe? Alidjani: That is exactly what I said. Rountree: I am still waiting for a motion on item one, how do we resolve this? Hepper: I move that we table item number one and two until December 12. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved by Commissioner Hepper and second by Commissioner Shearer to table items 1 and 2 until the next regularly scheduled meeting December 12, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anyone have anything further to bring before the Commission? If not I will entertain a motion for adjournment. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It was moved and seconded that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:12 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 14, 1995 Page 59 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: _ ~ ~~ //~ / ~ic~~LL~;~ ~ ' /Erl V~IILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CLERK APPROVED: ~t ~ 7', ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~_ P~ esz,~ ~,, ~ CITY OF MERIDIAl~ PUB ~C MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~~~a-~c,A~ ~~~L ~z3-i~ty i • ~ ' ` I O v I~ I I O O I I ~ N I~ I I ~ N I ~ m i m __~ ~ I __I i ~ N I (/l N M i I W N ~ --I v I j Q ---- - -- - ~ I i a ~, ~ ~I- ~ N O j ~ ~ oiI I ~ ------ - __ - I p --- a 2' N ~ ~ I ~O ~ M ~i I I O I I p I ~ ~ n ~ N I _. ..~ I V I m ~ ~ m -- - ~ -~ - -~ {- ~ O ° M I_ I ~ m v - i ~~' - -- --- ~ I ,,. i _ ~„ I AI '' r- --I ~, ~.r,- I :, ~:; ~„ -- --- -- ~ _. ,..r,. >, _- .,; ~U n i ~; Q ~ --- - i V - - -. ~ ti~ ~~ O I I ~~ C i ~~ ~ I WWI ~ II I ~ I two -w i J __.-__ ~ ~ I U` 0 o I v~ I ___ - ', c w -_----~ I 4=. I I O~ O O O '° ~ a -,_- -., I ----- - - ~ KF k. y Ik['kt b iaa: O 1 Ido .o'I 1 ~-:. nt~~ N I I c _... a I $I --__ _. ii m -...__..- -. I ~~ I i 1 N __-_ ...I_ i ~ I I I ~o~'~~m~ o~l e ~„ i I ~,' ~ Iss.,~u,` ~ _ / i ~a~.° ~ etOV X°.~98a -- ~ ~ --- -" 'm, ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~~ I/ i ~ \ '. N N N _1 _ N N N\ ~L \~ai - ---- -- - -- ~ I - - - \ \~-~- t S N U N -° n .~ u "' ~ o '~ CI o u n '9 c '~ 6 'v ~ ~ o n ~o ~ q m ° 'U Q o ~v° o g y, o ~~ gm m~ q v ,~°q o p N 6 O ~.9 •5 N f,] n v u 0..5 z a V a D 6 v a z r c O u Q z '9 ~ m q 'd ~ •y p a ~3~ ~ ~ ' 9 ~~Q~ 6 'd w .9g~y y ^ ~ vo ~~~~ 'qo~9 « w o w ~ • 7 0 0 m~a O' O O M ~ 'g. °d p~~~ w 'E e Y 9 ~ w y~ '~ pup '~ ry •°p $' d ~ '~ .o ° ... v .5 a is ',~ Ga ~ , ~° Pi"~ 0° ~ w .O Y y tl[~ V1 to O b (n Y ~' '~ •4 ~tl '9 W ~3 G O ~~ '$ ~ p a o 00°'pp°;.2 ~ ~ ~ bR1 a ~'c T ~n ~ ~ ~ b p d ~ ~ ~ Q M C~ fA r'a o o ~ g o ~ £ os~ ~~ au ~ u m .°. o ~' p" ~~Wq~E a~d~g ~° d9 v V~w S ~« a e ab~ ~ s•9 0 ~~g ~~~w ~s ° p o ~ 3 O ~ « ~' ~ S ~ ~ ~:~~ o ,~ C d w ~ ~qq a '.9 u0. G '.~ d 6 •i r. c`7 VJ M r~ 7 a A O a, 3 ~~~ a ~'~ u ~~~ m ;,, ~+b •~ c .~ ° ~~.jj, W t3 q ti y a ~ ~ E o '~ d e b ~ ~ ~ ~ btl ~ ° ~ ~ O A 3 ~ °.~~ 0 uu~ o d a z ° °: N 8 a:~ w+°~ m iii ~j o~ q H g y b « ~ ~ q O ~ ~ ~ ~ b o to ° ~ ~ ~ ~ m U SEEN y+ « W { ~ ~ y . ~ y ~ A~ O O~~~ T ~ O ~ ~. 3 ~ @'E~y o~ m off,. >>w p y 0 0 N r.. .~ 7 q m.l M .e v u L1 ~'1 Y w ~.'' = ° m Wy o or° C °'~~ .9 y ~. ~ 0 0 Q 9 ~viimmxG~x ~ ~~v' H h~ B ~ '~s; ~@ ~~ A bS ffi ~ 0=j g ~~ ~'~` y 5~ v ~ p g0°o.~ ~ Y~ .~.~9 ° eo ~V s 9 u~ °a ,~~ ~ 6 E~,~°w~ .qo. e~;u o0 °ci3 ~ g~~~ °°_ X39 '~ ~, ~ r '" u ~ 'S « a p X a 3 u .~ ~•oa« o,0 5 `~g~ ~ D~C~moo ~'~ o ~1s~ o e '~~' barCr~ ~. y ~~ N:~ r ~ m e' °, u 3 sU~y ~ eDV T O O O .9 O q U '~'mC u ~Q •tl~y ~ u .a V Y .. 3 ° °o ~ b 5 3~° O Iq ~ ~ ;~ u o~ '~ ~ v ~ V S S W 3 }~ .?s/t • ~° ~j '~ °'.o .q u m (L q ~ 5 G~V " 00 o p ° q u o u 01 u .$ u s . •s Cp pp yO~ ~Qp u w 'd 6 ~ ,~ a (`yi ~~ .d b m$ o. ~ ° 9~ o o u E 3 0 ~'° ~ .6 .9 pv j3 o m~ G 8 8'~Q'.~'go ~ o~~'w~ a ~'"5^~°,0~° u w U .may .d .9 a .G b v~ .b u e u 0 ~ :' o~ h o a f N °~ A ,o ~~ a 5 E a °~ '~ m u u E u c E •w V •mQ ~' q ~ u ~ ~•o°V ~ V~O'9~w ~~ .tl m.9 ffi9 .°'. G ~.~' o g ~ ~ w ~ 3 53 T c 'a ~ ° ~ o ; ~w u 2 s t ~c ,~, u ~ '~ ,p, ~ w '~ 61 u ~ ;o~ . 9 ~' ~ u '3 o p c '~ 0 .gdd3 0 ° 'G ~ °u Rf F° o m o ~ 3 ~ F` °u z o~wd Eqo w • s y C g y y V q pgN ~yx' Ya00 mCgQ U~.,C{ .Oam M••01~~ Oq y w C b~C q+Ui 1180.0 W11y l°1 a M ••1 q b U H ..M1 M ~ q -1 O. •.~ m Gm°iwya„~~ sYv EE11my •oqy .,Oa ~l •+ wsa~ qam k0 s 0 0 0116 C ~QC V t ~ O '~ 0 g 7 0 y q C q O N ..1 b q O 7 „O~Y'O a q y.y W lay M V Uq- C yG-a~aimm Nyqq -Uirv U ~ V p~~m C~1NQ U C011Aa UHO•ya O q 0 b 0 abay~°~d .1~oAi ~bC ~~y ~3y~ 'O~y V aA tl1o °~ cyyu°'~w itio•o y61+0y y Oy,iO O lOi m T q '•1 U O H U •A1 ~ °mea~ anam b• q l1 O•Y/4 UUm CyV aL AOL.NO y.~1q la Om wAw10a +Ci ati .i MYMgG0~0 aae N O+~1A O grI~LOC• O y Ygi •.~~ A O LO,e .CN~.7.~iw ~ lqa q q C °ayA ~,°u~~ ~ C O AQy~~ gOP~i=+O/N a+' .+ a F A A C O 0 0~ 0 u ~~y~y omb •a+~'oaou a~~ .°1„~1-1quN O N +~1 0y O~J~A OWQ Cbm,~,~ ~ gNgyN 'OOm Wy O~ , ..U1 0 R7 0 ~'•U'1 g C y O O °' A~ .a 0 1a N O y U d~ ~ g O~ O W ~ C~ A 4yU m+01 .,Oj b••a O qyy >~~~ ' q O y +1 L. O U A H y +01 ~ A "~ ~ p 0~ 0 W O yrJ ~ °.imlyy °ea m N m •OjOq O UCM ~ 1~.1 x/ A y i1 y'O OA y F C"a m ~y +y1~U7C3g1 ..1 ,~cC ~ ~ggyy ~W ~ ^~ OO I'~7 s~ •o cwa''>° H ~ O .C v°y a yA~ a°a1a O C 0 0.1 O y •.~ lp N aq+ dd~pYr7 •'C1HNbUU x~o~ c a G M 0. ~ O ~ O b~ •yym•awF 0y{lL~ q..Ci may aoa.r ~~o'1++'~ao y U b f O y Q U O N M Oy H O O y H W V 0 0 ° m~,oGG~a'S,b-l ~~ M F y y 0 amy °°+'y r-1 O ~ ~ M 0 4~~y ,q » n O A +/ M ~e y Q O O"'l~ N m 0"'1 ~~OM N O ~ ayY IEO u a OH Oy O ~ O H ~ m qy OO~M v a ., c 7 0 0 O X m M~ O C O O o1y uo.+-1 U 0~.~•Iy N,GO 0 layyq qy ~Q e ^ e e ,i M U 41 >~ T-a O O -1 „°1 C C ~ O N O~ O y .,°l~G N.CyUgH Y Oa+a ; ~ y U of rl 'C Uyy m o ...~i u° y .qi ~ o o y ° ~' a .~ ° .~s;, aQo C r01 Q O s g b W p DOOq Oyd qN-i 0 u~O~aa'.y A~OlOi00CFU+ oy~yumq m~ O q +O/ N yy~}+~+~ A H y m q•O la m,-1 q 0 C U y lL,,,a q O m .OjOUM~ b~A •yu s~°o , }jyrib ~H O y q.rG~OA eyy~y'~ua , U 7~bO.nab C U O Otit Ol O C NLiib q0~.-f 0 0 0 y W B ,r'1 y'1 A a • ,~ F11~ 0110 ~oowo«."ay • a > a 6 ~ O m u O F > O U U Y d 4 M M d ° 0 o u ~ L Y •C u G Op M~ ••1 d q N b O O RI M 9 q O T q . i 7 t q '+ P M M p q u O O q q M ~ w d u d 6F d q u L H •~ u > pn M d O L .C w u u.L u u u•w o d t m U V d •~ K F d u u m ~ • W M G O O O q M O ~ 6 q ~ i Op 0 0 w U b p O +1 T .+ q d •M U M •N Y N q N d as , O q O~ d d U u w 4 q ~ F Y w m 0 ~ F •n O ~ u u . j Y i• P y ~ D N ~. i oq e w O P q d •a W M N p ^~ M ~ m p q i•u tl q C C q y {p~~ y 1 ~ y S• P6 NbW N 9 d O~ 0 a F 4W U R w N z W u 1a a ~~eil/zc£ %/-/4- 95 BST ~ 7,, 2~L. ~~~~ ~ri-~ ~BF 6~ G`GfiG JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUGER. Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE. Secretory Mr. Jonathan R. Seel W.H. Moore Company 8150 Emerald, Suite 140 P.O. Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707-2204 Re: Valley Center Industrial Pazk Deaz Mr. Seel: BRIGGS FAtri~.~^r^ni.; iaiC ~Q~' y 4 199` ealsr;. i~aNc November 8, KIlR7 19!~ Bec11F. r ~RpFp.[Rp~~~R~FI~I `F~ os, ACRD staff has considered the foregone actions regazding this property and will process the preliminary plat of this project to the ACHD Commission recommending that two public streets and two private driveway connections to Overland Road be allowed. The matter will go the Commission on November 29, 1995. The meeting will begin at 7:00 P.M. I strongly suggest you or your representative be in attendance at the meeting. Sincerely, ]rk~ S Develo ent Services Supervisor cc: Chron. Project File Traffic Services Director Briggs Engineering, Inc. (B. Bowcutt) ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 UA/19:95 15:19 '$208 J45 7850 _ ACtiL -+~+ nn :.,..o c.~~~. a~.~., .:... ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Development Scrvices Division Developtaem Application Report Preliminary Plat -Valley Center Mazket Race Overland Road w!o Meridian Road, City of Meridian Valley Centet Market Place is a 26-lot commercial subdivision on 34.46-acres. The site is located an the itotth side of Overland Road approximately 350-fit west of Maidlan Road. This development is estimated to ge>raate 7,840 additional vehicle trips per day if developed as a busitt~s park of commercial usc. Roads impacted by developmem: Overland Road -Minor arttrial with no pathway designation - Tratl9c count 5,6691n 1990 ~R~~T R~~ otz..T` ACFID Commission Aate -September 20, 1995 - 12:00 p.m. 09/19:95 15:49 "~"Z09 345 1650 ACRD +--~ BRIGGS EYG. X100^.:007 Facts and Findmgs: A. Generallnfarmation C-G -Zoning 26 -Lots 39.Ob -Acres 288 -Traffic Analysis Zane (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Overland Road Minor arterial with no pathway designation shown Traffic count S,6b9 in 1990 1,700-feet of frontage 50 to 65-fit existing right-flf-way (25-feet No centerline; 25 to 40-foot s!o centerline) 90-foee required right-0f-way {4i-feet from centerline) Overland Road is improved with 24-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk a~ was overlaid is 1940. Utility street cuts in the new pavement on Qverl:urd Road will not be allowed units approved by the District Commission or until after the five year moratorium far cutting pavemed. B. On May 3, 1945, the Commission acted on rezone MRZ-4-95 which inchules the western portion of this site. C. The site is currently Dadeveloped. D. Overland Road has only two travel lanes at the pressor tune. An irrigation canal borders the south edge of Use project site {i.e. rho north edgt of Overland Road). The ultimate development of Overland Road is expected to include five lanes (i.e. two travel lanes for each direction plus a center turn lane]. This roadway section will require 90-feet of right-of- way. The presence of the canal on the north side of Overland Road will complicate the ultimate design and right-of-way requirements. Staff rezo~onds tLat the applicant coordinate the dedication of addidoml right-of--way and relocation of the irrigation canal out of the future right-0f--way with the District and the appropriate irrigation district.. This requires a new p~~P.,r for the canal. VALLHY. WPD pap 2 'l9`2U8 345 7850 el;W/ may, • • E. A traffic signal may be required at the westerly entry drive depending upon future development within the proposed subdivision. F. Overland Road has a vertical carve east of the project. Sight distance is a major cot~ern in determining driveway locations. Staff has reviewed the sight distance at the Proposed Private driveway iatatseaioa with Overland Road based aeon the ptnfde glen sabmiued by the applicant. For the platmed location, the proposed driveway provides safbcient sight distance. However, ao other driveways east of the main site driveway txn be allowed due W sight restrictions. G. In accordance with District policy. staff reeonm-ends that the apglic~t be required to construct 1,70Q-feet of 5-fob wide cozCtete sidewalk ort Overland Road abutting the Parcel. H. This site has sufficient frontage to tgtalify for a maximum of 3 points of access. The applicant is proposing two private roads and two shared driveways on Overlay Road. The site has been designed with 41ots that only have frontage on Overland Road. and staff believes this is a less than optimal design since it abets a minor arterial street. Staff recomme®ds that the access to the site be restr~ted to the two private roads aai one sltamd driveway on Lot 25 with a frontage road/easement to provide access ro the 6-lots between the private roads. The applicanu has indicated that staff has discussed access to this site at an earlier date. Staff told the applicam the mmber of driveways allowed in conformance with the District policy in effect at the time. Staff does not believe that the review of this subdivision should be bound by the previous discussion. The subdivision should be reviewed incompliance with the curtest District policy. I. Incompliance with District policy staff recommends that direct lot access to Overland Road be prohibited, with the exception of the above stated shared driveway on Lot ZS. Lot access restrictions should be stated on the final Plat. J. The ttaospotlation system will be adequate is accommodate additional traffic generated by this proposed development. K. This application was scheduled for a public heating by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on Stptemhcr 5, 1995. VALLEy'.WPD page 3 49/19/95 15:51 $248 9d5 7650 ACHA •y• BRIGGS ENG. f~4D4/DU? • • The following recommendstioos ale provided as conditions for approval= Site Specfffc Regntrements: Dedicate 4S-feet of right-of-way from the centtrline of Overland Road abutting parcel (2Q- additional feet). Total right-of-way to be dedicated inay vary to take into consideration the relocation of the Ttennedp Lateral. Coordinate dedication of right-of--way with ACFID. The owner will be compensated fix this additional right-of-way from available itgpact fee revetaus in [Eris bene5t mne. If the owner wishes to be paid for the additional rigftt-of-waY, the owner mast submit an application to the impact fee adminishator prior to breaking gro®d, is accordance, with uectioa 15 of ACRD Ordinat9:e #188. 2. Construct 5-foot wide sidewalk on Overland Road abutting the parcel, after relocating the Sennedy Lateral. Locate the sidewallc 1-foot inside of tbe right,af--way. 3. Utility street cuts in the t~vr pavement on Overland Road will not be allowed unless apgtoved by the District Comtmssion. 4. Lotaior streets shall be designated as private sheets. ACRD does mot make any assurances that these street9 wiA be accepted as a public strceta if such a retptest is made in the funne. 5ubstantiel redesign and rceonShvction coats will be necessary in order to qualify these roads for public ownership arm mare. S. Construct the private sued enhances oNo Overland Rand to meet District 9.xt9.,~~ for a street iniersectiam. 6. Pave the full width of the interior streets at least 1A-feet beyond the edge of pavement of Overland Road with 15-foot radii pavement tapers, a~ iastail street tmma and stop signs for the private streets. 7. Construct Otte 30-foal wide driveway with 15-foot pavement tapers to I.ot 25 on Overland Rnad. The driveway shall be paved a minimum of 3afed beyond the edge of pavement on Overland Road. 8. Aocess to tbe site is resiricbed to the two proposed private roads and one shared driveway on Loc 25. 9. Provide cross access easements far Lots 15, a~ 22-26, Black i, to the two private roads. VAlS.EY.G/PD Psge 4 09/19/95 15:5 $203 343 1630 ACRD i~~ BRIGGS ENG. ~I005r 007 • 10. Rrtth the exception of the simred driveway on Lot 25 and tl~ two private marls, direct lot access to Clverlsnd Road is plohibued, in compliatke with District policy- Lot access restrictionc shall be stated on the final plat. Standard Rega~emeuts: 1. A request for modification, valiance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the Developtnem Services Stapelviaar. ~1 ~' 1~. ~, ------• t~ 'der and i~h~~ a writtenSEDlati3tt4n.5tf mhva ;_ --- r a I ~Id rea++lt in s ~heraro9al 1La+'dshtQ or in~uitY. Requests received prior to the date scladAtled for Cotnntission action shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commissioxi on the next available meeting agetada. 2. A request for an appeal of the Commission"s action shall be made in writing to the Development Services Sltpcrvisor within 15~H1' ~ of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The appeal wtl! be scheduled to be beard by the Commission within 20 calendar days after recxipt• - lei h m o aihsran_tix1 ~T11=~~ Or itawi~:v. 3. Aright-of-way permR must be obtained from ACRD for any street or utility coition within the public rigln-of-way. Utility cuts should be combined where pracdicai to limnt pavemem damage. Cottiad Conatnaction Servitxs at 345-7667 {with zoning file number) for details. 4. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review earl appropriate action by ACRD prior tp ;cn,anre of bmlding pe[mn (Or Other recAtired pt:rmits). The proposed drataage syslrm shall retain all storm water oo-site and shall conform m the tequiremeuts of Meridian. Public street drainage facilities sill be located m the pobl~ rigin-of-way or in a common let owned by a homeowners association set aside specifically for that use. There shall be m trees, liertcee, bushes, sheds, or other vahaable at~nities placed in said easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall lee noted on the plat {whew applicable). 5. Locate driveway curb carts a minimimt of S-ftxt frmn the side tat property lines when driveways are not being shared with the adJacent ganpcrty- 6. Construct pedestrian ramps oxi the corner of all street ititerseciion in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335. VALL13Y.wPD Page 5 09/19/95 15:52 $2U8 945 7650 ACRD ~ BRIGGS EYf,. ~IOOBi 0U7 • 7. Dedicate a 20' x 20' right-of-way triangle (or appropriate curve to keep sttaet improvements within the public right-of-way} at all intersections abutting sod/or within the developmem prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits). B. Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems arsons parcel. 9. Comitme borrow ditch drai~gc abutting Parcel (culvert may be requu+ad}. 10. Provide written approval from the appropriate itrigationldraimge dlsinct suthorrztng storm nmoff itQo their system. 11. Yf street improvements are proposed, locate obstructions [utility facilities, irrigaCion and drainage dstches and appurnemsmces, ttC.) outside of the public rigtrt.-0f-way, as may be retptired by the District. Authorization for relocation shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 12. l.ocare proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of-way atKl out of the clear-vision aight- triangte of all street and driveway intersections. 13. Install a stop sign on every rmsignaliud approach of a Protect street to an latersacti°n involving a collector or arterial as the cross-street. The stop sign shall be installed when the puo~ect street is first accessible to the motoring public. 14. The developer is regaatid to install street name signs at the locations approved by the Ada County D~~Y District. Purchase street twee signs. sign poles, and mous>ting hardware from ACID3's Traffic Opetatinns DePattment or as approved outside supplier. The District will mat mamtfachue street signs und7 a copy of the recorded plat showing tree recording data has bees provided to Developrnsd Services staff. 15. Provide a clear visien sight triangle at all meet iflter3ections. Vtrithin this triangle no obstruction higher thaw 36-inches above the top of pavemeatt will be allowed, iceludiug landscaping, berms, fences, walls or shrubs. The triangle shall be defined by the long leg rneasttred down the ceaoeriime of any collector 35Q-feet and the short leg tneastued down the centerline from the collector street Curb line 20-feet. Provide notes on the plat and street construction plans of dsese restrictions. lti. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action. vala.>n_wen $ge 6 09/191 95 15:53 '$2Utl JA5 1c5U actW ~-.+ do u,r,a n:~.,. ~. uu r.:m: • 17. Provide design data for proposcd access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACRD. 18. All public streets and drainage systems sball be designed anti comma in coafor>naz>ce with District standards and Policies. 19. 5pecificatians, lam surveys. reports, plats, drawmga, Plans, design information anti calctdations prestnted m ACHD shall be sealed. eigoed and dated by a Registered Professional ]cngineex or pro&ssioml Imd Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code. Section 54-1215. 20. The applicant shall submit revised plena for staff approval. Prior to issuance of ixiildmg permit (or other required petmus), which incorporates aah+ raNired design changes. 21. Construction, use a~ property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requircmenta of the Ada County I3igltway District prior m District approval for occupancy. Shoald you have any questions or comments, Please cot-ral.K the Development 5crvices Division at 345-7662. VAI.t.EY.WPD page 7 • • ORlGlN,~L BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI33ION BILL HOWELL ANNERATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE SOUTH OF I-84 AND EAST OF LOCUST GROVE A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 17 T.3N R.lE. BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on October 10, 1995, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners representative, Kristina Donner, appearing, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony, 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 public hearing scheduled for October 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 10, 1995 hearing, the Applicant's representative, Kristina Donner, appearing in person, that the public having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices being available to newspaper, radio and television stations, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby takes action on FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PAGE - 1 i ~ the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 28.49 acres in size; that on the 20 acre parcel, the Applicant proposes a facility to sell and service Freightline trucks; that the remainder 8.49 acres would be for a future body shop and repair center. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T (Rural Transition); that the Application requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and Applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow for the sales and service of trucks/trailers; that the Application is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4. Adjacent to this development is the I-84 Interstate freeway and Overland Road; that the major arterials of Eagle Road and Locust Grove Road are nearby; that to the west is the Playground RV Park and driving range; that to the east is the future expansion of this development of the 8.49 acres; that across the Interstate to the north is Magic View Subdivision; to the north and east across the Interstate is the Jackson's Travel Center, currently under construction; that across Eagle Road to the east of Jackson's Travel Center is the proposed St. Luke's Medical campus, currently under construction. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 2 • 6. That Bill Howell, is the Applicant; that the owner, Par 3, an Idaho General Partnership, Richard M. Phillips, General Partner, has consented to the application and has requested this annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural, that the proposed use is industrial, that the proposed district is C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial, that the proposal is compatible with other industrial facilities adjacent to the project, and that the property would be harmonious with adjacent developments; the annexation and zoning Application also states, "The proposed zoning amendment relates to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan in that it will be adhering to the mixed plan usage of the Plan, and being close to the interstate is in an area that is intended for industrial use." 8. That Ms. Donner testified that there will be a facility to sell and service Freightliner trucks on the 20 acre parcel; that the future parcel, consisting of the 8.49 acres, will be for a body shop and repair center, to be constructed in a phase II development; that sewer is of concern because it is only on the north side of the Interstate; that they would work in conjunction with other developers to bring the sewer to the south and share the cost; that if sewer is not available when they would like to open, they have discussed this with the Central District Health Department and they would propose to put in a septic system and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 3 utilize that until they could bring the sewer in; that they plan to extend the water lines 600 feet to get water to the site. She also stated that they had concerns over the statement of Shari Stiles about requiring four to six foot berms along the front of Overland and they are a little bit concerned about trucks having site distance problems and that none of the other properties along Overland used for industrial uses were required to have berms. In response to a question by Commissioner Rountree about the lines on a map being topographical lines and the map showing a raised platform the length of the lot that would perch the trucks up above the elevation lines shown on the map, Miss Donner indicated that that was what it showed. She also stated in response to a question, that the Playground driving range was right next door to this property to the west. 9. That the Applicant, Bill Howell, testified to clear up some gaps left by the earlier testimony of Ms. Donner; that the elevation of the display area along I-84 is believed to be an 8 foot elevation from grade; that the display will be of all new vehicles; that the proposed fleet maintenance shop is primarily a full service facility and the phase II plan within the 20.00 acres will be for a body/paint shop; that the 8.49 remaining acres will not be used by the Applicant's company; that it is simply going to be marketed; that the anticipated daily trips of the full size road tractors and trailers, ranging up to and including 53 foot, could possibly figure to be 75 to 100 per day; that the operating hours are 7:00 a.m. to currently 12:00 p.m. and that general maintenance FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOHELL PAGE - 4 ! ~ is the activity going on at 12:00 at night in the shop areas; that the anticipated maximum employees will probably be 60; that the Applicant foresees as a great eventuality, full service leases. 10. There were several property owners in the immediate area who testified at the October 10, 1995, hearing about the Application; the testimony can be summarized as follows: 1. Kevin Merritt, acting as President of the Meridian Greens Subdivision of approximately 225+ homes, wanted to go on record as totally opposing this Annexation for several reasons. That the proposed location for the transport truck and trailer service sales and service facility is not appropriate in keeping with the present planned use of the adjoining and local property; that based on the traffic volume, and traffic safety issue, this proposed development is not compatible. 2. Roy Harada testified that he also is in truck sales with a different dealership; he points out that contractually, freightliner requires all dealers to be open 24 hours; that the traffic flow is going to be significantly higher than what Mr. Howell represented, and be well over 150 to 200 vehicles a day in and out; and that developments of this type are typically noisy, smelly and are open extremely long hours; that the freightliner class 7 trucks, which are medium duty trucks to a class 8 truck, grossing in excess of 100,000 pounds, are your typical trucks, along with Cumina, Caterpillar, all of the miscellaneous service shops bringing parts in as well as Federal Express trucks; that another concern regarding the excessive traffic might well be the mechanic needing to check out the trucks after servicing to use Overland Road, turn right, hit the Interstate, turn right again, hit Eagle Road, making a circle, thus adding to the safety factor of the kids in the nearby subdivisions. 3. Becky Bowcutt, of Briggs Engineering, testified that on behalf of her client G. L. Voigt Construction, whose property just south of this parcel was approved for approximately 290 R-4 designation lots; that Ms. Bowcutt requests that the City of Meridian evaluate the landscaping that is being proposed by the Applicant and that a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 5 landscaping plan be submitted by the Applicant and screening at thedentrances a t Ih84b and nalong the interstate. 4. That Lou Lois testified that he affirms the opposition from the President of Meridian Greens Subdivision with regard to the safety and noise; that he believes that this type of operation is not one that would stop at midnight but be more a 24 hour operation; that the paint shop and of hazardous materials so close to residential areas was also a concern of Mr. Lois'. 5. That Beth Markland testified that she also is in opposition to this proposed annexation for the same reasons previously stated, specifically the traffic concern, the possibility of these trucks hauling hazardous materials and the noise. 6. Neda Hagner testified that she too wishes to add her concerns regarding the traffic congestion on Overland already being frightening and the safety of children and grandchildren; that having these monster trucks on Overland is like putting up barriers to enjoyment of their homes. 7. Ron Thomas testified that his major concern is the ground septic system and the Ada County Health District allowing such a thing to be built; that the traffic is bad now and would only get worse. 8. That Rick Reever testified that he lives in Sportsman Point Subdivision and his concerns lie with the traffic situation and the access to the on ramp at I-84; that with the proposed shopping mall at the southeast corner of the on ramp at Eagle Road, this will only add to the congestion and potentially more safety problems for the kids in just the square mile between Overland, Eagle, Locust Grove and Victory. 9. Nicole Garduno testified at the hearing voicing her opposition to the proposed annexation and zoning mainly for the safety issues. 10. That Mark Wilson testified, echoing objections with regard to the hazardous waste that this project will potentially generate and the possibilities of contamination of the sewer system years done the road. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PAGE - 6 11. Karen Frisch, from Hunts Bluff Subdivision, testified that her subdivision likewise will be affected; that she also is opposed to this proposed annexation. 11. There was no other testimony regarding the annexation and zoning given. 12. That testimony regarding annexation and zoning was incorporated into the record of the Conditional Use Permit Application; that Mr. Kevin Merritt also testified, reiterating his statements he made on the annexation and zoning; that Stewart Edwards testified that the noise of this plant would be quite an impact of the trailer park next door; that the roads, in his judgment, will not hold up under the kind of traffic and the rigs that will be generated, especially on Overland Road. 13. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator, Meridian City Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health Department, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, submitted comments; that those comments are submitted herein by this reference and are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, commented that the legal description submitted with the Annexation and Zoning application needs to be revised so that the northerly boundary is the northerly boundary of Interstate 84 rather than the centerline; that he commented in the application for annexation and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 7 zoning for the property in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Overland Road and Eaqle Road, the Power Mall, which comments are equally applicable to this Application, that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9- 605 M; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, except for wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that off-street parking, paving and striping, drainage plan, outside lighting, and all signage shall be in accordance with City Ordinances; that a profile of the subsurface soil conditions shall be submitted to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation and that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model; and that specific site comments were the following: a. That the Public Works Department shall be provided with information on anticipated fire flow and domestic water requirements for the proposed site, as this is critical for determining the water serviceability for this proposal; b. That at this time this site is not serviceable by the Meridian City Water System or by the Meridian City Sanitary Sewer System; that the Applicant will be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the City's current points of terminus in Overland Rd. to and through the proposed site; c. That assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process, in addition, Late Comers fees will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. 15. That Shari Stiles, Planning & Zoning Administrator, submitted comments; that details of the landscaping plan are needed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAOE - 8 for review and approval; that four to six-foot high berms should be included along Overland Road to reduce the impact of headlight glare on adjacent residential property; that City Ordinance requires a minimum of one (1) three-inch caliper tree per 1,500 square feet of pavement, however this requirement is unrealistic for this development, however careful planning of landscaping is required and must be approved prior to obtaining building permits; that I-84 and Overland Road are both designated as entrance corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore require a 35-foot minimum landscape setback; that perimeter and internal landscaping is also required; that five-foot (5') sidewalks shall be installed; that the proposed realigned subdivision boundary would require a plat to be prepared, as these are not platted lots; that any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per City Ordinance; that a drain ditch currently exists along the eastern property boundary which need to be tiled; that a Certificate of Occupancy is required prior to opening and that occupancy would be contingent upon meeting all zoning, building code, public works, Fire Department and agency regulations; that the possibility lies in that overnight repair work will be needed which would require this facility to be open longer in which case the Applicant may need to provide soundproofing of the service/maintenance shop to avoid disturbing the residential areas; that illumination shall be designed to not cause glare or adversely impact neighboring residential uses and freeway traffic; that a Development Agreement is required as a condition of annexation and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 9 that it would be preferable to have a detailed list of conditions in lieu of a development agreement. 16. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 17. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and is in the Eastern Industrial Review Area. 18. That the property may be able to be physically serviced with City water, if applicant extends the lines; that the ability to provide sewer service to the property is unknown at this time and the City Engineer did not submit comments regarding providing sewer service to the property. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots and other uses. 20. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are specifically applicable to this Application: 1. Under LAND USE Comprehensive Plan Map, Page 22 The land use delineations depicted in the Comprehensive Land Use Map are not precise, but rather the Comprehensive Land Use Map represents a long-range vision of community development in generalized areas. The map represents a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PAGE - 10 2. 3. compilation of input and ideas expressed by citizens, community groups and local leaders. LAND USE GOAL STATEMENT, Page 23 1.10U Promote the design of attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian which will clearly identify the community. 1.11U Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities, (water, sewer, streets, fire, police) by encouraging controlled growth through city planning reviews and development agreements. INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, Page 24 3.3 Access to industrial areas from collector and local streets will be discouraged. 3.4 Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. 3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. Easter-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area, Page 25 3.14 The character, site improvements and type of light industrial developments should be harmonized with the residential uses in this area. 3.16U Land uses within the Eastern Light Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 43 Existing Conditions Overland Road, East of Linder, is listed as a Minor arterial. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN Entrvwav Corridors, Page 72 Entryway corridors are arterial roadways FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 11 • entering the community that introduce both visitors and residents to Meridian. City-designated gateway arterials include the following streets: a. I-84 (East and West entrances) f. Eagle Road (North and South entrances) q. Overland Road (East and West entrances) Entryway corridors are a community's front door. It is acknowledged that the corridor's trees (or lack thereof), commercial signage, and site character provide the first, and often times the most lasting, impression of the entire community. Therefore, the entire community and, most specifically its governing bodies, have the right and the responsibility to guide the development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway corridors. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement, Page 73 Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically-pleasing entrances to the City of Meridian. Neighborhood Identifv Goal Policies, Page 74 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses, and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed. 21. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 22. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: "(C-G1 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 12 • 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." 23. 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 planned commercial developments, are an allowed use in the C-G district. 24. 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." and a Planned Commercial Development is defined as follows: "Any development in which the principal use of land is for commercial purposes." 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 13 • "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, 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; that the industrial and commercial developments do provide taxes for providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreational services for people that are here, and which will come here. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PADS - 14 • of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20'i wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 15 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 32. That Section 11-9-605 L states, in part, as follows: All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. 33. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 34. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWLLL PAGE - 16 for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." 35. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. 8. Financial Guarantees -The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C." 36. The Applicant submitted an Application and materials and documentation for a conditional use permit for a truck/trailer sales and service facility; that such Application, materials and documentation on the conditional use are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted materials on the conditional use request and did reference how the truck/trailer sales and service facility would be operated; there were comments from the public which pertained to the annexation and zoning and to the conditional use permit, and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full for purposes of the application for the conditional use permit. 37. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PACE - 17 • been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. C. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. F. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owners, and is not upon the initiation of the. City of Meridian. H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOW1sLL PAGE - 18 upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. J. That this Application has been difficult for the Commission to decide because of opposition to the Applications, which could dictate that the Application be denied, and because of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which shows the land as being in an area shown as a Mixed/Planned Development Area, which could dictate that the Application be approved; that the Commission understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an individual basis and understands the Comprehensive Plan's direction for development of the area; that the duty of the Commission, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property owners and their concerns, but also the Comprehensive Plan is just that, a plan and not a controlling ordinance; that this statement that the comprehensive plan is not controlling is supported by Balzer v. Kootenai County Bd of Commis, 110 Idaho 37, 714 P.2d 6 (1986), stating that Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, does not require a zoning ordinance's land use designations to be in strict conformance with the corresponding land use designation of the comprehensive plan, Ferguson v. Board of County Commis, 110 Idaho 785, 718 P.2d 1223 (1986), holding that the decision of the County Commissioners to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 19 • rezone property as commercial, even though it was contrary to the existing comprehensive plan, was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous, and Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984), stating that a land use map is not the comprehensive plan, but only a subpart of one of 12 components referred to in Section 67-6508, which go into the making of a plan. K. That the duty of the Commission is to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the City and its citizens; that it is with this duty and background that the Commission has undertaken to make these Findings and Conclusions. L. That the Applicant has stated in its Applications, and in its presentation to the Commission at the public hearing, that its proposed use of the property will be an industrial use; that the type and location of the industrial use proposed by the Applicant is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, since the Plan states that industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses, and there are no industrial uses adjacent to Applicant's site. The use is also not in conformance with the Plan since the Plan states that the character, site improvements and type of light industrial developments should be harmonized with the residential uses in the area; that the Applicant did not present any evidence as to how its truck operation would be harmonized with the residential developments in the area; also it would be very difficult to harmonize truck traffic, noise, and pollution with the many residential neighbors in the area. The Plan also states that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PAGE - 20 • industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities; it is likely, and probable, that the noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution levels produced by a number of Freightliner trucks would be substantially greater than that created by a residential subdivision. The Plan also states that land uses within the Eastern Light Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements; it is judicially noticed that trucks of the nature that Applicant proposes to sell and service are not clean or quiet and that the exhaust they produce is considered to be hazardous or objectionable. M. That if the property was annexed and zoned, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G, the Applicant would be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement would address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development, including but not limited to, 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. f. M, Piping of Ditches and 11-9-606: a. Bicycle Pathways. b. Storm drainage. c. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 21 • d. Greenbelt. e. Pressurized Irrigation. 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fees, adopted by the City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by its representative during the public hearing. 3. Addressing access linkage, screening, and buffering. 4. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 5. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 6. Submission and approval of any required plats. 7. Submission and approval of individual buildings, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 8. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 9. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback as suggested under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 10. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director. 11. The sewer and water requirements. 12. Agreeing that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is applicable to the land and any development. 13. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development. 14. Meeting the representations made as part of the application and hearing process. 15. 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. N. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states that, if annexed, a development agreement should be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and take effect upon the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 22 adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. That it has been the experience of the City that development agreements are difficult to enter into prior to the annexation ordinance being passed; that it is concluded that the development agreement shall be entered into prior the final plat being approved and prior to issuance of any building permits, if the property was annexed. O. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is not in the best interests of the City of Meridian and an annexation and zoning ordinance should not be enacted. P. That regarding the conditional use permit applied for, it is concluded, that since the Commission has concluded that the annexation and zoning is not in the best interests of the City, there is no useful purpose in making conclusions for the conditional use permit Q. That if the property was annexed and zoned, the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's office, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, would have to be met and addressed in a development agreement. R. That if annexed, all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property would be subject to de-annexation. S. That the Applicant would 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 would be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - HOWELL PAGE - 23 subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement. T. That if annexed the Applicant would be required to meet the requirements of the Ada County Highway District U. That if annexed, these conditions would run with the land and bind the applicant and his assigns. APPROVAL OF FINDIN03 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 ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED ~~ VOTED ~~ VOTED VOTED, VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the property set forth in the application not be annexed and zoned and therefore no conditional use permit be granted. MOTION : 1 ~~/ ~ I/ l/ DISAPPROVED: APPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - NOWELL PAGE - 24