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