1992 05-12
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1992:(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 28, 1992: (APPROVED)
1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REZONE REQUEST BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT
THE LANDING SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
2: FINIDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON AN[~CATION & ZONING REQUEST BY GLEN
JOHNSON; CREEKSIDE MANOR SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
4: FINDINGS OF FACT' & CONCCT,USIONS OF LAW ON AAIIQEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY MAWS
& GREGORY; MAWS ADDITION: (APPROVED)
5: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT: (APPROVED)
6: PUBLIC HFARTNG: PRELII~IINARY PLAT ON APPLEGATE SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BODINE OIL & FOODMAKER
INC. FOR A DRIVE-IN RESTUARANT: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL)
8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANII~{ATION & ZONING W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PUD GENERAL, CAPITAL CHRISTLAN CENTER: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED - RECOMMENIDED APPROVAL)
9: DISCUSSION ON AMENIDMENTS ~ THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES:.
MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING MAY 12 1992
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30
P. M. .
Members Present: Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Moe
Rlidjani:
Others Present: Kay 8 Wayne Skiver, Marianne Smith, Clifford
Everman, Jean Klug, Keith Loveless, Roger Jennings, Bill Boyd,
Bob & Darlene Rundle, June 8 Ray Pack, Minnie Anderson, Don
Bryan, Dale Duncan, LaWana Niemann, Fred Ziegler, Lowell Gass,
Bob & Linda Brobst, David Turnbull, Karen Burden, Sylvia Evans,
Douglas Gregory, Don Stephens, Alan Bradshaw, Dave Leader, Helen
Gusick, Mary Bronson, Virginia Johnson, Bernice Tisdale, John
Clemens, Glen Yaka:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1992:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to
approve the minutes of the previous meeting held April 14, 1992
as written.
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 28, 1992:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to
approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held Rpril 28, 1992 as
written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LRW ON REZONE
REQUEST BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT THE LANDING SUBDIVISION:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Vea; Shearer - Yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, based on these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, hereby recommends to the City
Council of the City of Meridian that this request for rezone be
denied.
Motion Carried: All Vea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 2
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATION 8
ZONING REQUEST BY GLEN JOHNSON; CREEKSIDE MANOR SUBDIVISION;
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Rlidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that if the property is
included in the Urban Service Planning Area they approve the
annexation and coning requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and compliance with the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that the owner be requested
to allow the Application to be postponed until the Urban Service
Planning Area issue is resolved and if the consent is not given,
that the Application be denied.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON ANNEXATION 8
ZONING REQUEST BY MAWS 8 GREGORY; MAWS ADDITION:
Hepper: I have a concern about duplexes being back in a
residential subdivision. In the past it seemed that homeowners
aren't always thrilled to have a bunch of duplexes abutting their
property. For that reason I'd like to add a stipulation to these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions that the duplex lots not be
allowed.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions with the
stipulation that duplex lots not be allowed.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea;
Alidjani - Nay;
Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Motion Carried: 3 - Yea; 1 - Nay;
MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 3
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning requested by the Rpplicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to t he all ditches,
canals and waterways as required in these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as a condition of annexation and that the
Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
specifically including the development time requirements.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Rpplicant for the
property described in the application with the conditions set
forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON APPLEGATE
SUBDIVISION:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there someone
representing the applicant, if so please come forward.
Keith Loveless, Loveless Engineering, 3330 Grace Street, Boise,
was sworn by the attorney.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 4
Loveless: I represent the developers on this project. We have
no problems with the conditions that we find within the staff
report. We have a problem and a conflict with an existing City
18" sewer main which for some reason seems to be about 3' outside
the City's right of way on the westerly side of the project. For
some reason what was shown as a straight line in the original
plans turns out to be about three different angles out through
there. We propose and have been in negotiations with the City
Engineer on relocating and providing for the requested 12 foot
gravel area over his sewer line so that your maintenance people
have access to it. This is adding approximately E35,000
additional dollars to the project to realign the City's main. We
have offered also to negotiation with the City on Lot 8 - Blk i
to provide for a new well site for the City. We do not plan to
put in a service irrigation system because of the limited
availability and the impact it would have on farmer's using
water, we feel it's probably better for them to have the water
than what little time we'd have. We would like to move that
ditch which goes along the south side of Blk 2 and services the
lots that front on Pine Street right now, we'd like to work with
those people to the south and get that ditch in a conduit over on
their property so they have free access to it. I believe that we
have complied with all the City Ordinance's for water and sewer,
fire hydrants, street lights and everything and I will be glad to
answer any questions.
Johnson: That estimate you gave, is that a bid or just based on
per footage?
Loveless: That's based on current pricing of pipe and the
manholes and our familiarity with the current prices, that's over
and above an B" line, if we were to put an 8" line through there.
Rountree: On the preliminary plat you show the alley with the
sewer line, that's the proposed re-alignment?
Loveless: Yes.
Rountree: Do you propose any type of barrier or buffer between
the backs of those lots in the alley situation?
Loveless: I would assume to make those lots marketable that
there would be a fence put up in those back yards in that case
because most people would find that they wouldn't really want to
have a roadway in the back. That particular alley technically
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 5
belongs to Ada County Highway District because it is a dedicated
alley on the original plat. We have discussed how to control
access on that with your Engineer and he would have to work with
the Highway District to gain a controlled access to that alley.
Right now it would terminate at Lot 11 at Carlton and 7th.
Rountree: On the north side of this subdivision you will abut up
to existing lots, do you propose any kind of a fence or screen or
something?
Loveless: We have not proposed building a developer installed
fence at this time. There's two theory's of planning either
isolate yourself or integrate yourself. We would probably be
willing to discuss that with that row of owners up there and
maybe joint venture some sort of thing. We'd leave that up to
them to come to us.
Rountree: Have you worked with ACHD at all as far as any kind of
traffic homing devices through that area?
Loveless: It will be a stop street at Carlton.
Rountree: I'd have the same question with respect to barrier
fence for Lots 1-9 - Blk 2.
Hepper: On Lots 1-9 - Blk 2, you stated those people would not
be using water from that ditch, but they would have a water right
access to that ditch wouldn't they?
Loveless: No. We plan on paying the City the set fee to waive
irrigation water. We will apply for a removal from Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District so they wouldn't receive a bill.
Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify?
Joe Mach, 539 W. Carlton, was sworn by the attorney.
Mach: We don't know anything about this other than what we've
received by certified mail. Myself, it seems like a lot of
houses to put on that small of a twelve acre patch. Would they
be compatible to the houses that are along that area now?
Another question is how much room will there be between Lot 10 in
Block 4 of the new addition and Lot 1 in Block 4 of the Welker
Subdivision? Voiced concerns and objection about too many homes
being built in that small of an area and also property values.
Johnson: Rnyone else?
MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 6
Wayne Skiver, 644 W. Pine, was sworn by the attorney.
Skiver: I got lost when the man was describing what was going to
happen to irrigation water on the south side of this. As near as
I can tell, he's going to move a ditch onto our properties.
We've got hedges and fences and things there, how is this going
to happen? What is going to happen to the drainage on the west
end of the property? It's been backing up there for years.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Alan Bradshaw, 551 W. Carlton, was sworn by the attorney.
Bradshaw: I was wondering if we could get a copy of what the
covenants of this Applegate Subdivision would be and the
approximate price range of the houses that would be in there?
Johnson: I believe it says 580,000 to (105,000. Rs far as the
covenants go, we don't deal with those here but you can request
those of the developer. Thank you. Anyone else from the public?
Jack Niemann, 505 W. Carlton, was sworn by the attorney.
Niemann: The only problem I have with this is you've got ten
lots abutting against eight, sa everybody along that is going to
have two backyards in one backyard. I feel that there should be
some kind of a screening, fence or something put down that and
maybe the same thing over on Pine Street.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
LaWana Niemann, 505 W. Carlton, was sworn by the attorney.
Niemann: I agree with Mr. Mach about there being to many lots,
but I'm sure we could live with th at if you could put a very nice
uniform wooden fence with the good woad side on our side.
Personally I would like to have a sidewalk in our neighborhood.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Charlie Morgan, Representing First Baptist Church, 4355 Balivi
Lane, Nampa, was sworn by the attorney.
MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 7
Morgan: Meridian First Baptist Church owns the property on Pine
Street and also have purchased some of the land behind, due north
of the street of our original parcel and my question is regarding
5th Street that extends south just a little over one lot, is this
land that lays directly to the east of the new subdivision have
access to that street?
Clerk Niemann: Yes.
Johnson: Rnyone else to testify?
Bill Boyd, 561 W. Carlton, was sworn by the attorney.
Boyd: I am concerned about having only one access to Pine and
two into Carlton which is a residential area.
Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? No response. Mr. Loveless
would you like to come forward and address some of the concerns
of the public.
Loveless: From a traffic standpoint I don't, if I where to
actually want to do this subdivision with minimal traffic impact
on our own subdivision, we probably would only have 7th Street
and not the 5th Street access. For people that commute, Pine
Street is going to be their best goal. Explained further.
Rs far as the too many homes on that amount of ground - all
parcels in here exceed the 8,000 sq. feet which is for the R-4
Zone. Right now the majority of Lot 8 - Blk 1 will not exist as
a residential, that's going to go to a City well lot.
Irrigation - we are not forcing the pipe over into the people's
backyard's on Pine Street. We would like to work with those
people in a work session to get that pipe into their backyard's
where it can afford them the best accessibility and use of the
irrigation water.
Fencing - I personally don't like a subdivision that looks like
frontier fort with a fence around it, but I guess there are
people that prefer fencing. I still think we'd be willing to
discuss a joint venture fence.
Rlidjani: You mentioned that for the irrigation ditch to be
moved and put on their property or the existing property at this
time because your lots are not going to have any irrigation
system being used on their side and you said you would work out
with them, there is some cost involved, are you expecting that
will be a joint venture?
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 8
Loveless: No, we have budgeted for that.
Rountree: One possible solution on those lots that have multiple
lot backing them would be a consideration on the developers part
for very strict covenants language that would at least provide
one fence.
Loveless: We would definitely put it in the covenants that it
would have to be a certain style and type of fence could be built
along those two lines or any perimeter.
Rountree: On the Pine Street lots the irrigation ditch there
presently is there by easement.
Loveless: There is no title of easement there that we have
found.
Hepper: What's the minimum square footage of the houses?
Loveless: 1300 sq. feet.
Hepper: You haven't tried for a mixed square footage concept?
Loveless: We could ask for a variance but we are not asking for
any.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify?
Doug Gregory, 525 W. Washington, was sworn by the attorney.
Gregory: Voiced concerns about traffic impact and lot size.
Johnson: Anyone else? No response. I will close the public
hearing.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to
recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat
based on conditions that the developer and the engineer work out
language to be presented that would address fencing issues and
the covenants and come to a mutual understanding with adjacent
property owners about irrigation delivery.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 9
ITEM q7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT BV
BDDINE OIL & FOODMAKER INC. FOR A DRIVE-IN RESTRURANT:
Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a
representative present?
Hepper: Stepped dawn due to a conflict of interest.
Glen Yaka, 1087 W. - - , was sworn by the attorney.
Yaka: What I submitted to the commission was a enlarged site
plan and the other enlarged plan shows the total development,
existing development around it.
Rountree: Where is the main entrance into the drive-in?
Yaka: The drive-thru is facing First Street, the main entry is
facing the bank or to the east.
Rountree: How would you propose to eliminate the bumper car
effect that you are going to have with people trying to make a
left off of Fairview and hit one of three curb cuts and try to
get to that building. Do you have a parking lot lay out? What's
there now is not good.
Yaka: We could block that off but the bank wouldn't like that.
Rountree: Would there be some way to put some kind of a
barricade from their northwest corner to that free running right
lane off First onto Fairview to eliminate at least that cross
over to try to hit the drive-in window lane?
Yaka: We could do that but we'd still have to have the approval
from the bank. The majority of the traffic would be going south
anyway.
Johnson: What is the distance between the existing banks parking
lot on the west side of the building and your line of cars that
would be circled there for the drive-in?
Yaka: I would say that the drive between the two parking lanes
would be around 24'.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 10
Johnson: I know how people come in and out of that bank parking
lot right now, they are swinging clear out in and then driving
across the paved area, this is dirt here, and they are parking
along here like this, when those people are backing out either
going north or south how much space do you have there between
what would be a line of cars waiting to place their order?
Yaka: 28'.
Discussion. fSee tape)
Johnson: Did you have any discussion with the City Engineer
concerning his 3rd comment as to what he had in mind?
Yaka: No I have not. It wouldn't affect the operation of the
project if it were blocked.
Johnson: I think the concern with those who are really familiar
with this is that that's the problem area.
Also for the record we have received a letter stating objection
to this request from Bert Myers basically expressing concern
about the traffic and congestion at that corner.
Rountree: I don't hear any reasonable solutions on their part,
willingness to try to negotiate or try to do something in terms
of traffic and I think it's going to be a problem.
Crookston: I thought when you started speaking you stated the
bank owned the property, did I misunderstand that?
Yaka: It's my understanding, I don't really know if they do or
not.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the
Public Hearing.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have
attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that we
pass on to the City Council a favorable recommendation provided
that a reasonable solution can be developed to address the
traffic conflicts.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MAY 12, 1992
PRGE 11
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FDR ANNEXATION 8 ZONING
W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD GENERRL, CAPITAL CHRISTIAN
CENTER:
Johnson: Mr. Hepper is back to hear this request. I will now
open the Public Hearing. Is there a someone representing the
applicant that would like to come forward.
Dave Leader, 110 Parkway Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Leader: I speak on behalf of Boise Capital Christian Center. We
are asking for an annexation and rezone with a Conditional Use
for a planned unit development on a 40 acre parcel that the
church has purchased. We are asking for a planned unit
development to accommodate the church and also provide generous
amount of open area for ball fields, parks, etc.. Rlso included
in the application is an area that would be for apartments and
some office sites close to Fairview Avenue there. We feel this
would be a good buffer between the Industrial Park to the south
and across the street. One comment in relation to the staff's
comments, it mentioned tiling all irrigation/drain ditches would
have a little exception to that because we would anticipate
possibly some of the drainage through the common area or through
the park might be worked into a swail and worked into the
landscaping rather than piping everything. If you have any
questions I'll try to answer them.
Johnson: With respect to that drainage problem have you talked
to the City Engineer on that?
Leader: No I hadn't.
City Clerk: There's a provision that can be waived, right Wayne?
Crookston: There is a provision there, yes.
Johnson: What would be your time frame for development and how
many phases are you anticipating?
Leader: The Church is the initial thing we are interested in and
we are hoping to proceed as fast as possible with that this year.
As far as the total development of the property, maybe I could
defer to Pastor Wilde but I would anticipate we are looking at
somewhere between three and five years. The Church itself is a
three phase project.
MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 12
Johnson: So the funding is available and you've made provisions
for funding the initial construction of the Church but anything
down the line is on the come.
Leader: Yes. Further explanation.
Rountree: So far where did you say your going to build the
Church?
Leader: That's the only thing the Architect is designing now.
Rountree: My question is, you show a street to the west side and
in this concept of going somewhere - are you proposing to tie
that into a existing County Road?
Leader: There's two reasons for that, one it makes sense the
property to the north of this, in the purchase agreement of this
40 acres was one in the same owners. Also in the general scheme
of things, it is my understanding that Chateau would run through
east to west from Locust Grove to Eagle Road, it splits into
subdivision streets but would tie again into Chateau going to the
east towards Eagle Road, it was our thought it would probably be
good to tie into that collector street at some time in the
future.
Rountree: pre you proposing then that the streets would then
become County?
Leader: Yes. I might comment on RCHD comments too where they
said they might like a traffic study. I guess our feeling is
that's kind of premature at this point. The farm store there
across the street was not required to have a study done. We
would 6e more than happy to provide a deceleration lane if deemed
needed. Certainly we will live with their comments concerning
drainage and so.
Hepper: Would the school site be a private school or public?
Leader: Private school.
Rountree: Rny public use of the ball fields?
Leader: Yes. Our anticipation is that those ball fields and the
park area would again belong to the church and be held by them,
however we certainly would have no problem with public use of
them when the church is not using them.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
MAY 12, 1992
PAGE 13
Crookston: My question on the availability for use of
the fields by the public - what kind of controls, are we talking
about fences around this kind of facility or will it be open?
Leader: Again, we haven't got totally into that. The area would
not be directly open onto Fairview.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will now close
the Public Hearing.
The Motion was made by Rlidjani and seconded by Shearer to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to pass
on a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM t19: DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCES:
Johnson: A couple of things for you to be thinking about - one
is a suggestion of Jack's on square footage with respect to R-4.
Basically what you've got in front of you are some
recommendations that came out of a three way discussion between
the City Rttorney, City Clerk and myself.
Decided to hold workshop on Monday, May 18th at 5:30 P. M.:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to
adjourn at 9:10 P. M.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TRPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
ATTEST:
RPPROVED
M~JOH~JSON, CHAI
• <~ I I + • •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
BODINE OIL COMPANY & FOODMAKER, INC.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY
MERIDIAN, IDANO
PREL IMINARY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
May 12, 1992, at the hour of 5:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing through Clint Yaka, the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and
the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional
AMBROSE,
FIT2G ERALG
d CROONSTON
Attomsys an0
Counsaloro
P.O. Boa lZ7
MsrlClAn, IANo
B381t
Telsplwna 88BdMl
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for May 12, 1992, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) daps prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1992, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and is owned by the Applicant, Bodine Oil Company, and
is described in the application which description is incorporated
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERALD
6 CROO KSTON
Attorneys NE
CounNlore
P.O. BOx 427
Meil0len, IeMO
83M2
Telapllona 88&4481
herein; that the property is located in what is referred to as
the North Curve and is at the corner of East First Street and
Fairview Avenue; East First Street is adjacent on the west and
Fairview Avenue is adjacent to the property on the north; that
there is a traffic signal light at the intersection of East First
Street and Fairview Avenue which controls traffic in these
directions: I. On Fairview proceeding west onto Cherry Lane and
south on to East First Street, 2. Traffic proceeding from Cherry
Lane east onto Fairview Avenue and south onto East First and
traffic on East First proceeding east on Fairview Avenue and west
on Cherry Lane; the traffic light does not control one lane of
traffic which may proceed north onto East First without stopping
at the light and go onto Fairview Avenue; this latter traffic does
not have to stop at the traffic light but may proceed around the
north curve pursuant to a yield sign and must yield to traffic
proceeding east from Cherry Lane onto Fairview Avenue; there are
a significant number of curb cuts and accesses to East First and
Fairview Avenue in the area of the subject property; the Payless
Drug Center and surrounding commercial property is adjacent on the
south and the subject property is accessible from the Payless Drug
Center parking lot; that there is significant traffic congestion
in the area of Payless Drug Center, the First Security Bank, and
Bodine Oil Company gas station and car wash.
3. That the Meridian Police Department commented that by
increasing traffic that enters Fairview Avenue from First Security
Bank additional problems are foreseen; that the City Engineer
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2
commented that he recommended that the traffic from the proposed
drive-in not be allowed to utilize the curb cut existing from the
First Security Bank onto Fairview Avenue and that a merging
traffic problem exists from Fairview Avenue east-bound and the
north curve east bound.
4. That Fairview Avenue is listed in the Comprehensive Plan
of Meridian as a principal arterial and East First is listed as
a collector street; that the traffic on East First is enough so
that East First should be listed as a principal or minor arterial;
that there is a significant amount of traffic; that there was one
written comment admitted into the record objecting to the
conditional use due to the traffic already in the area.
5. That the property is zoned C-C Community Commercial,
which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a
drive-in facility which the application requests; that the
proposed use is a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant with a drive-in food
service window.
6. That the C-C Community Commercial is described in the
AMBROSE,
FITZOERALD
BCROOKSTON
ADOmeye antl
Cooneeloro
P.O. Boa a2]
Msrltllen, Itla~o
83BaR
TeleDrwne BBB~a81
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows:
(C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: The purpose of the
(C~- S ist~'Tis to permit the establishment of general
business uses that are of a larger scale than a
neighborhood business, and to encourage the development
of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street
parking facilities, and associated site amenities to
serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip
commercial development and encourage the clustering of
commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have
direct access to a transportation arterial and collector
and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian.
7. That the use proposed by Applicant is an allowed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
• •
conditional use in the C-C district pursuant to 11-2-409 B., but
does require a conditional use permit pursuant to 11-2-409 B.,
Drive-in Establishments.
8. That other property in the area is used commercially;
that there is one other establishment across East First Street
that is a drive-in restaurant and has drive-in food service
window; that the present use of property is vacant ground but is
used frequently for political signs, Christmas tree sales, and
other miscellaneous purposes.
9. That proper notice has been given as required by law
and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have
been given and followed.
10. That sewer and water is available to the property.
11. That the City Engineer submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein.
12. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted
comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full
herein.
CONCLUSIONS
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attomaya antl
COUnaelora
P.O. Box X27
Msritllsn, Itlaao
B3G2
TslsP~one SBB~N1
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property;
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
Idaho;
4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a
conditional use and a conditional use permit
is required by ordinance.
b. The use would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but
the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional
use permit to allow the use.
c. The use apparently would be designed and
constructed, to be harmonious in appearance
with the intended character of the general
vicinity.
d. That the use could be hazardous, and
likely would be hazardous, due to traffic
unless some traffic plan and design is put
ArneROSE, forth and agreed on, but the use would not
FITZG ERALD necessarily be disturbing to existing or
acaooKSroN future neighboring uses.
Attomeye ane
Co~nee~ore
e. The property has sewer and water service
RO~eez ~Y, avai 1 abl e.
MmIEI•n, leaoo
e•:e•z
T•laplwne 9BB~Nl1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
f. The use should not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services unless the
traffic problem must be resolved at the
public expense, and the use would not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
g. The use may involve a use, activity,
process, material, equipment or conditions of
operation that would be detrimental to
person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic.
h. That sufficient parking for the property
and the proposed use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result
in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
5. That the comments of the City Engineer and the Ada
County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and
other governmental agencies must be met and complied with.
6. That it is concluded that there is a traffic problem in
AMBROSE,
F1T2G ERAlD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
Counwloro
P.O. X1117
Mxltllen, lONo
83812
Te1sDKUne 8881161
this north curve area where the property is located and the
development of the proposed use would only exacerbate that
condition; that it is concluded that if the Applicant can propose
a solution to the traffic problem this Application could be
approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED G~
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER UOTED~/ice
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED~~~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED --~
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Atlomeye end
Counselors
P.O. Box s2T
Merl Olen, ICello
83812
TeleDNOna 888-1181
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application if the Applicant can propose, and the
City can agree on such proposal, a solution to the traffic problem
and congestion on the streets adjacent to the proposed use and in
the parking lots adjacent thereto and that the approval be subject
to the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the
water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and
the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of
Meridian and be subject to site planning review.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~~~
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 7
~~
11 May 1992
''
Jim Johnson
Chairman, P & Z
Meridian City Hall
Dear Chairman Johnson:
1~ Q~'
~~~
Because of another meeting, I am unable to attend the public
hearing this evening. However, I wanted to speak about the
proposed Jack In The Box Drive-in Restaurant.
It seems to me that this corner of Fairview/Cherry Lane and
East First is badly congested now. The traffic is very heavy
and putting in a fast food restaurant, certainly would add
more congestion. I realize the customers would probably use
the existing driveways on both sides of the curve, but making
left turns off Fairview into Bodine Oil already causes some
traffic snarls. This is also true heading south on East
First, making a left turn into the Deli or Payless parking
lot.
Please put this letter into the record as opposing this
project.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Regards,
Bert Myers -<~~'`~`}^' °~'(~
Meridian, Idaho
CC: Mayor Kinsford
Councilman Tolsma
Councilman Giesler
Councilman Yerrington
Councilman Corrie
ii ~ •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CAPITOL CHRISTIAN CENTER
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
WITH CONDITIONAL USE
SOUTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
SECTION 5, T. 3 N., R 1 E. BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on May 12, 1992, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m, on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East
Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant, appearing
through Dave Leader, and having duly considered the matter, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
MBROSE,
F172GERFLD
6 CROOKSTON
~tlomeye me
Counselors
P.O. Box 1E7
MMUIen, IOeNo
88MP
TslaplioM BB&sMl
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
with conditional use was published for two (2) consecutive weeks
prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 12, 1992, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1992,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
AM BROSE,
FIT2GERALD
6CROOKSTON
Attorneys ena
Couneelora
P.O. Box ~Y7
Merltllan, ItleNo
eae/z
Telsp~one BBNMt
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 40 acres in size; it is located west of the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and
Eagle Road; that Fairview Avenue is a principal arterial as set
forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as
Rural Transition (RT) and the use would be for a church, offices,
open areas for parks and ball fields, apartments and single family
residential; the Applicant requests zoning of Limited Office (LO)
and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to
allow the mix of uses.
4. The general area surrounding the property on three sides
is used agriculturally and the property on the other side, which
is across Fairview Avenue, is used as a corporate park developed
as a planned unit development which contains a couple of trucking
firms and the Intermountain Farmers, which is a retail commercial
outlet.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits.
6. The Applicant, Capitol Christian Center, is the owner
of record.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned Limited Office (LO) and that a conditional use be
granted for a Planned Unit Development; that the present use of
the property is agricultural; that the applicant indicated that
the intended development of the property would be as set forth in
paragraph 3 above.
10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that
testified objecting to the Application.
11. That the property is in the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood as
set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the property can be serviced with City water and
sewer, but the sewer would have to be extended from Jericho Street
by the Applicant.
13. Ada County Highway District, the Department of Health,
Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, and
Meridian School District submitted comments and such will be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That the Limited Office (LO) District is described in
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
SOROOKSTON
At~omeys ane
Counesloro
P.O. Boa t2]
MxlElen, IONo
B36aY
TelePnone BBBJNI
the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5, as follows:
(L-0) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L-
0) District is to permit the establishment of groupings
of professional, research, executive, administrative,
accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and
similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy
testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing
of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions
of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this
district. The L-0 District is designed to act as a
buffer between other more intense non-residential uses
and high density residential uses, and is thus a
transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and
Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement
in this district.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
15. That the Applicant requested a waiver of the requirement
of tiling ditches; that such a waiver request must be made before
the City Council and not the Planning and Zoning Commission.
16. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given
and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERA~D
dCROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
Counselors
P.O. Bov 43]
MsriEien, IGNo
&9BIP
Talsplrone SS&eM1
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that
exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative
function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under the provisions contained
in Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice; that the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged the
application for conditional use under the requirements of 11-2-
418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
A CROOKSTON
AUOrnsye entl
Counselors
P.O. Boa lZ7
MerlElen, ItleAo
B3N2
TelspNOns BBBJABI
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City
of Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian,
and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by
the owner and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the
City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land.
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and
comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time
schedules and requirements; that the Applicant will be required
to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property will be
subject to Site Planning Review and the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that any waterways and canals within the
property will have to be tiled unless a variance is granted by the
City Council.
10. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - PAGE 5
11. That since the Applicant's property is in the NORTH
CURVE NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and
zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded
that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned as
requested; that the conditions should be those stated above and
other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that
such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if
the conditions are met.
13. That any of the requirements of the Nampa Meridian or
Settlers Irrigation Districts shall be met as well the
requirements of the City Engineer.
15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of Limited Office (L-0) would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
16. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
concludes a$ follows:
SCROOKSTON
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
A~~ornere Ane
Coun..~w.
a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance.
P.O. Boa 4YZ
Maeat.n, ie.no
b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with
ex~z
Teleplgne eBBN61 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6
Z • •
the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a
conditional use permit to allow the use as a planned unit
development.
c. The use as shown by drawings with the application should
be designed and should be constructed to be harmonious in
appearance with the character of the general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the
access and traffic requirements of the City and the Ada
County Highway District should be met and if they are,
traffic should not increase significantly because of the
proposed use.
e. That the property has available to it water service and
the Applicant can provide sewer service by extending the
sewer line in Jericho Street.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services if the Applicant meets the requirements of the City
and Ada County Highway District and the use would not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use will be required and the parking layout must
meet the requirements of the City ordinance.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature
of major importance and should be subject to design review
since it is a planned unit development.
17. It is further concluded that any comments,
recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, except for
possibly the tiling of all ditches if a waiver is granted, the Ada
AMeROSE, County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire Department, will
FITZGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
have to be met and complied with.
AllOmey9 and
Counsalon
P.O. BOx 0Y7
MerlOlan, IEYlIo
&7B~2
TalePNOne 888JM1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - PAGE 7
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTE6
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
Q CROOKSTON
Attomeya anE
Couneelore
P.O. Boa 027
Merldlan, ICA~o
BJBa2
TelaPMne BBB~IMt
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Annexation and zoning requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application and approve the conditional use
permit for a planned unit development with the conditions set
forth in the findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the
Applicants apply for a variance if it desires not to have to the
all ditches and waterways as a condition of annexation and that
the Applicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
specifically including the development time requirements.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~~~ ` DISAPPROVED: ___
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8