Loading...
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