Loading...
1992 04-14 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLAPdNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 ITEM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1992: (APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY MC BEE, INC. CANDLELIGHT SUBDIVISION: MAKE RECO.NIMEPdDATION ON PRELIMINARY PLAT IF FINDINGS APPROVED: (APPROVED) 2: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED PORTION 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE LANDING SUBDIVISION W$THIN USPA) REZONE ON THE PORTION THAT LIES SOUTH OF WHERE WALTMAN LANE INTERSECTS THE PROPERTY: (FINDINGS ~ BE PREPARED) 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT, CREEKSIDE MANOR:(FINDINGS ~ BE PREPARED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT: MAWS ADDITION: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT: (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) 8: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MERIDIAN PLACE #3: (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) i • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson. Members Present: Moe Rlidjani, Tim Hepper. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer. Other Present: Bob Waitley, Steven Breen, Renee' Rtlanson, Elaine Town, Juan Klug, Ted Harper, Sid Harmon, Raleigh Hawe, Addy Huston, Liz Bolts, Don Bryan, Norman Fuller, Ralph Labato, Roy Johnson, Judi Thacker, Pat Thacker, David 8 Diana Aulbach, Shelly Hupko, Loren Townley, Chuck Fuller, Matt Lorcher, Anthony Hill, Kasandra Hill, Richard Parcells, Richard Jewell, Larry Bertetto, Dale Newberry, Terry Harper, Ken 8 Debbis Lilienkamp, Wade 8 Rletha Carstens, Marcia Rnderson, Chuck Leihe, Steve Rnderson, Dale Thon, Dan Evans, Sylvia Evans, Rhonda DeMers, David Turnbull, Craig Shoemaker, David Kline, Mike 8 Laurie Luke, Violet 8 George Devee, Julie Parker, Carol Johnson, Susan flaker Thon, Linden L. Carr, John Gunderson: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1992: The Motion was made by Rlidjani and seconded by Hepper to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held March 10, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS ON RNNEXRTION 8 ZONING REQUEST BY MC BEE, INC. CANDLELIGHT SUBDIVISION: MAKE RECOMMENDATION ON PRELIMINARY PLAT IF FINDINGS RPPROVED: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Rbsent; Shearer - Absent; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper 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 as stated above in the Conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 2 forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicants be specifically required to t he all ditches, canals and waterways 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 and the conditions of these Finds and Conclusions and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rlidjani that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adapts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Rbsent; Shearer - Absent; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: R11 Yea: Discussion with City Attorney about the Urban Service Planning Area. lSee tape) The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning and 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 zoning 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 Ordinance of the City of Meridian; that the owner be requested to allow the application to be postponed until the Urban Service Planning Rrea issue is resolved and if the consent is not given that the Application be denied. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINRRY PLRT ON SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION: Chairman Johnson: I'd like to make a couple of comments before we start the public hearing. We have six public hearings this evening so I'm going to ask at this time that we limit comments to three minutes. I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there anyone present who wishes to testify? MERIDIRN PLRNNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 3 Dawn Couch, 2280 S. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney. Couch: Voiced concerns about school overcrowding, traffic, water problem with pressure, fire and police protection, and zoning. When will project begin and end? Is there a problem with the sewer? What kind of landscaping will be placed on Locust Grove? Alidjani: You are concerned about the zoning, what did you mean? Couch: Well last month when we were here there was a lot of discussion of R-8, R-4, so I'm concerned as to what it is going to be zoned. Chairman Johnson: R-4. Is there someone from the Applicant who would like to testify? Greg Johnson, 3157 N. Leather Place, was sworn by the attorney. Johnson: We have revised this request to address some of the concerns that the local people have. We revised the request to be all R-4 zoning, the preliminary plat has a density of 3.2 per acre, the lot sizes are quite comparable to the project to the west, we are berming both Overland Road and also Locust Grove Rd., there will be a good sized park in the neighborhood and at this point we have met with the School District again, they have not determined whether or not they want a school site in this project but they would like to continue meeting further. They know that they would like one in the immediate area, they just haven't decided where they would like it. Chairman Johnson: Have they indicated what size area they are looking for. Johnson: A grade school, they have been talking somewhere between ten and eleven acre sites. Chairman Johnson: Schools are always a problem and I'm interested in the School's reaction to your offer to cooperate and talk about a site. Johnson: I approached the School District when we first started planning this in February, at that time they were not interested in this site because it wasn't centrally located in this section yet. The last meeting that we had, they are not as concerned with that any more, they do want a site in that section somewhere. We feel this will be a quality project in that neighborhood. `~ MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING RPRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 4 Chairman Johnson: Thank you Any questions for the developer? Hepper: Questioned about the buffer zone. Johnson: The lots that back up to that subdivision, they are 100 feet frontages with some as deep as 140 feet. Those lots will have larger homes on them. Hepper: What's the minimum square footage? Johnson: We haven't proposed to restrict them any further than the other lots. We won't have any mixed concepts in there. We've been talking in a range of 1300 sq. feet, but we haven't determined that yet. Hepper: Would you be at all inclined to put a minimum plan of 1300 sq. feet? Johnson: Yes we are going to set one higher than 1300 but we don't know what's it's going to be. We have other property down by Overland and other areas, it would be very difficult to market if we get to large. I would be reluctant to say that we would want something larger than 1500 sq. feet minimum at this point. We would like the flexibility. If you would like to restrict it deeper into the project or to the West we would probably be doing that anyway. Discussion of square footage. (See tape) Johnson: Will the approval be subject to that being annexed or do we have to go through a whole preliminary plat procedure? Atty. Crookston: You can ask that it be tabled for anything that lays outside the Urban Service Planning Rrea until a later date. Johnson: I'm not sure I understand that fully. Can it be approved subject to that happening or do we have to go through preliminary plat process on that portion at that time? Chairman Johnson: You don't have to start over. Johnson: I would request that we table that portion then. Chairman Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify? Larry Bertetto, 665 Rntigua, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE S Bertetto: I have concerns about the square footage. The fact that when you see on the plans 1300 square foot and that's what is in writing. I believe the minimum in Meridian Greens for single family, single story house in that subdivision is 2200 sq. ft., a two story is 2400 sq. ft.. Also the developer talked about the land being the same size. I think the lot minimum is 8,000 sq. ft. and the minimum lot size in Meridian Greens subdivision is 10,000 sq. ft., so that's considerable about of difference. Hepper: A lot of these houses backing up to Meridian Greens here have 100 foot frontage with 155 foot of depth so they are at (in- audible) - Bertetto: I thank the builder for making that change. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else from the public to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Alidjani to approve the preliminary plat on that portion within the Urban Service Planning Area, with the stipulation that the whole project be 1500 sq. feet with those along the west side having a minimum of 1600 square feet. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE LRNDING SUBDIVISION W/REZONE ON THE PORTION THAT LIES SOUTH OF WHERE WALTMAN LANE INTERSECTS THE PROPERTY: Chairman Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there someone representing the developer present? Dave Turnbull, 11322 W. Hickory Bark Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Turnbull: Our preliminary plat consists of generally two portions, one being a request for a preliminary plat on existing zoning, the other being a application for a rezone with preliminary plat. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Hepper: Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer? Turnbull: Yes I have. Basically what it is is a 30 feet reciprocal easement, it can be handled in that manner or as private drive. i • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 6 Hepper: Have you talked to Meridian School's about possible school sites? Turnbull: Yes twice. We did sometime ago when we were doing the first preliminary plat, which consisted of 90 lots. They didn't express any interest at that time. When we submitted the application for the second preliminary plat again we approached the School District asking if they were interested in a school site in our property areas there and they declined. They felt it was not central with the area they wanted to locate. Hepper: Did you have any problems with the City Engineer's comments? Turnbull: No. The traffic study is underway now. Hepper: Do you plan on piping those ditche s? Turnbull: They hadn't addressed that. There is the Kennedy Lateral whi ch could be re-piped. Hepper: Th is development is large enough to afford a partial development of a City Park. It d oesn't appear tha t you have anything in here. Turnbull: No but we are willing to address that. Hepper: Do you have a comment on w hy the applicant couldn't go R-8 rather than R-4? Turnbull: Basically we've been going as you can see, if you take the first preliminary plat and the second preliminary plat as a total we have something in the order of 430 lots. We have done some larger lots in the current phase. We've been trying to maintain that, but when we get down by the freeway and are impacted by problems that the freeway causes, it's just a matter of marketing. Chairman Johnson: I think what you'll run into there with the City's attitude is to buffer that between the freeway with an R- 4. At this point we are discouraging an R-B zone. Turnbull: You can see what we've done on Linder Road and I think it's done rather nicely. Rddressed the buffer by the freeway (see tape) - MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 7 Hepper: Another concern is the number of streets down there proposed going into any future development that might have backed up to this development. You've got 340 lots and only two access points. Turnbull: We would pro street stub to the west. at one point and time objection to that. We going to work. We neighborhood. pose to provide at least one additional We don't own that property but I'm sure that will be developed. We have no want to provide something here that's are sensitive to the needs of the Hepper: I would think that to the west you should have at least one other tin-audible) - Turnbull: I agree. Alidjani: The only concern I have is, 1000 feet of one road going from one end all the way to the other. If you go phase by phase can you situate something so that when one phase is done at least you can have another access. Turnbull: I can't control what the other surrounding property owners are going to do as far as their own ground. I know what accesses we currently have and could provide. Discussion - tsee tape) Hepper: What is the minimum square footage? You have minimum square footage in R-4 with 1100 and R-8 with 1000. Turn6u11: That's not what we are proposing. In proposals one through three of the Landing, we have been requiring 1300 sq. ft. minimum. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Rhonda DeMers, 1241 W. Kimra, was sworn by attorney. DeMers: Voiced concerns about traffic, school overcrowding and the sizes of the lots. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Ken Lilienkamp, 1259 W. Kimra, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING RPRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 8 Lilienkamp; Concerned about the Linder Road congestion, school overcrowding, water situation and lot sizes are to small. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. There are traffic studies being done in that area. Anyone else to testify? Steven Breen, 6302 Northview, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Breen: I'm here tonight on behalf of the Johnson Family Estate. We own the property just south of Waltman Lane and adjoin the proposed subdivision. Concerned about the volume of cars and traffic congestion. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? John Calhoun, 660 So. Linder, was sworn by the attorney. Calhoun: Concerns about additional traffic on Waltman Lane. Where Waltman Lane comes through, I own the property just west of this subdivision. I'd like to see Waltman Lane lined up with the Waltman Lane on the west side of Linder that goes west of Linder. Need a stop light at Linder and Franklin. There is really a problem with Waltman Lane & Meridian Rd.. We need another access. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Matt Lorcher, 740 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Lorcher: I'd like to see Waltman Lane stay a dead end street. Waltman lane runs east and west and it intersects with Meridian Road at the east and dead ends at the west. Rlso Waltman Lane is a bridge on Ten Mile drain and according to Ada County Highway files the bridge was inspected last year and it did not pass. It's now on a critical list. There are currently nineteen homes located on Waltman Lane and each homeowner is satisfied with our quiet lane as it is today. (Further - see tape) Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Gary Fors, 843 Lilac, was sworn by the attorney. Fors: I agree with everything that Mr. Lorcher just stated. What would be wrong with bringing the traffic onto the freeway on Linder. MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 9 Chairman Johnson: How would you do that? That would be up to the Highway District. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Rnthony Hill, 780 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Hill: If this road could be widened the full 60 feet with curbs and gutters the full length of that and that includes widening the bridges and moving all the utilities, I believe this should be done before traffic is put onto this street. As it is now, this street will not handle that type of traffic. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Loren Townley, 521 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Townley: Meridian Road and East First is a very dangerous intersection right now and it's getting worse. Clerk Niemann: There's going to be a light installed there. Townley: The 91 Traffic Safety Section advised there was seven major accidents at that intersection. Five of these were serious accidents with injuries. New housing will put more vehicles into this intersection. One of my main concerns is a bus stop that's right there at that intersection for the Grade School and Junior High. (Further explanation - see tape) Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Jean Klug, 722 W. 3rd St., was sworn by the attorney. Klug: Voiced concerns about water resources. Statistics gathered show a usage of 500 gal. per day per home. Hook to City water or drill a well. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Rugstina Jacobson, B16 Waltman, was sworn by the attorney. Jacobson: What we have basically is three proposals for the developer. This is going to impact very severely. We have a very quiet lane at this point and time, and it's a great place to raise children. When this road is put through we are basically a half mile straight shot. What we would like the developer to do, we would like Waltman Lane widened to meet Rda County specs, ~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 10 which would be a 60 foot road, it would be required for them to put new soil underneath to match the asphalt on the top. They will also have to put in the curbs and the gutters, they will have to put in lights, they will have to move every single utility pole because they are all in to close and will not allow a 60 foot road with sidewalk. They would also have to completely replace the bridge. We also would like to see something done with lights for traffic. We would like all these improvements to be done before the developer is allowed to develop this area. Otherwise, Waltman Lane cannot handle it. The second proposal to allow the developer to get some money possibly to make all these improvements that he would be required to make would be to allow him to go ahead and start selling the homes but to block off Waltman Lane. Our third proposal is for the developer to make another exit onto Linder and to by-pass Waltman all together. Chairman Johnson; Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Mark Pierce, 1348 W. Kimra, was sworn by the attorney. Pierce: My questions are concerning the west exits. Rs you know I live in Crestwood and there are a lot of kids in that subdivision and that traffic that goes through there now is quickened up. My question is to the developer, if your thinking about going through Fenway Park and then opening that up onto Kimra and then out to Linder Road, that was my main concern. Traffic concerns. What is the pricing as far as the houses that will be put up there? Chairman Johnson: Thank you. You've been sworn, go ahead and make your comment. Breen: The design has already begun for the intersection change at Waltman Lane and Meridian Road, the light will be there. They have a November 15th completion date on the schedule. What we are concerned with is that we are only looking at doing part of the job by doing the intersection. We hope that you guys will require that this road be made complete. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Roy Johnson, 9225 Chinden Hlvd., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE it Johnson: I just have a couple of comments to clarify some of the things that have been said tonight. #1 - We do have a traffic study in progress. #2 - Tomorrow ACHD imposes an impact fee. Impact fees are used for the development of Collector or Rrterial Streets that are of public interest and that are off site public development. This development has a number of lots remaining in subdivisions #2 & #3 and it also has the number of lots they have here that will be all be paying impact fees and those fees certainly could be used to upgrade Waltman Lane and that is at the discretion of the ACHD. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Ted Harper, 582 Kearney Drive, was sworn by the attorney. Harper: My major concern again is the traffic, both up Waltman and out to Linder and I believe that probably taking the R-8 zoning away and making it all R-4 would limit a lot of the traffic. Would like to hear about the traffic study when it's through. Chairman Johnson: I'm sure that at the Council the traffic study will be brought up. Anyone else to testify? Turnbull: Comments on domestic water situation (see tape) - As far as density on the rezone portion, I don't recall the exact number but going from an R-4 to an R-8 I think you've added something in the neighborhood of 7 lots. Chairman Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? Aldrige, lin-audible) was sworn by the attorney. Aldrige: Wondering about the future of the project. (in- audible) - Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Fors: Back to the water, what's your position on it? I want to know. Chairman Johnson: What do you mean by what's our position? We have done water studies. There was an analysis given and we are in good shape with respect to water that we now have and our ability to keep water flowing. ~J MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING RPRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 12 Fors: I'm talking about the irrigation water for the subdivisions. Now what's your position on that? Chairman Johnson: We don't have a position on water. The water with respect to irrigation is controlled by the irrigation district. Fors: No we are not talking about an irrigation district, we are talking about you are drilling a well on this particular subdivision, your not taking irrigation water from the irrigation district, now what's your - What happens if a well goes dry or whatever? Okay. What's your position on that? Chairman Johnson: We don't have a position that I know of. Clerk Niemann: We don't have any control over that. If Water Resources grants them a permit to dig a well we don't have any control aver that. Fors: What your saying is your allowing this irrigation, it's supposed to be pressurized irrigation is what I was under the assumption. That's pressurized from the irrigation district, not drilling a new well. Chairman Johnson: There are alternatives available. There's nobody on this board here today that is a water expert. We don't have the answer to your question but you can address that to the City Council. Fors: So what your saying is, if some neighbors well goes dry, you don't care. Chairman Johnson: Nobody's saying that. Did you hear anybody say that? Fors: No. Chairman Johnson: Okay we are not saying that. Fors: Well what are you going to do about it? Chairman Johnson: If that happens then that would have to be addressed. Fors: And it will have to be. But what's happened in the past they dig deeper wells. i • MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING RPRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 13 Chairman Johnson: I don't have the answer to that sir. I assume it's the people that own the well. Rtty. Crookston: The responsibility for the well is who ever owns the well. That's why the Department of Water Resources has implicated a permit process for drilling a well. Fors: Where's that responsibility laying? Is it Mr. Johnson, or is it mine, or is it, what happens here? And your saying your going to blame it onto - Chairman Johnson: We didn't say we were blaming it on anybody. We are just saying we don't have any control over that you see. Fors: You can take control. Chairman Johnson: Fors: Stand up. Chairman Johnson: Donna Aldrich, 265 Aldrich: Wants Wa Chairman Johnson: your testimony we Council. How do we do that sir? Thank you. Rnybody else? Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. ltman Lane was left as is. I now close the public hearing. Thank you for appreciate it and it will be passed on to the The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rlidjani to have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared and to table the preliminary plat, I think we also need to have a stipulation in the Findings of Fact on the R-4 zone that the minimum square footage of the houses be 1300 square feet. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #5: PUPLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXRTION 8 ZONING W/PRELIMINRRY PLAT, CREEKSIDE MRNOR: Chairman Johnson: A portion of this application lays outside the Urban Service Planning Area which means that we can't take any action on it tonight but we can except public testimony. I will open the public hearing, is there someone from the applicant who would now like to address the commission. MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 14 Richard Jewell, 1082 Rrlington, Eagle, was sworn by the attorney. Jewell: We have been in communication with the City Engineer and the Clerk regarding this issue on the Planning Area. The original property or the main piece of property my understanding is that it is in the Planning Area. There's a second piece of property that we are including in the subdivision, which I understand is not. There are 30 lots, the lots will range from 8000 to 11000 square feet. We are asking for an R-4 zone. The property on the west side borders Ten Mile Creek, we have been in communication with both the irrigation district and with the people who are in control of the waters there. Most of the items on the list have been discussed with their respecting agencies. Alidjani: Which list are you referring to? Jewell: The list from the City on the comments. The wet land issues I understand have been discussed with some of the adjoining property owners. The main reason the wet lands are even there right now is because of the drainage that comes down from the subdivision in Country Terrace. There is very minimal wet lands in the portion that we are subdividing. Sewer and water service will be provided up to Country Terrace, whether they would like to connect to it or not. Traffic concerns have been addressed by us in respect that there be a second access, not all the traffic will go through Country Terrace. Is there any particular portion of the items on the list prepared by the City that you'd like to discuss. Hepper: What was the setbacks on the frontages? Jewell: It's required to have 20 and in many of the cases there's probably 25. Hepper: Okay but the restrictive covenants are 20? Jewell: I believe so, I don't remember. Hepper: Lot 15 down there with a 20 foot frontage and a 15 foot minimum is that lot buildable? Jewell: Yes you have about 100 feet between lot 14 and the east boundary of the subdivision. Hepper: What's the minimum square footage of the houses? Jewell: We have 1800 sq. feet now, that would be the minimum. We are envisioning probably 2000+ for the majority of them. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING RPRIL i4, 1992 PAGE 15 Hepper: On your application here it states 1600 sq. foot minimum. Jewell: We will be raising that to 1800. Rlidjani: Are you referring to the City Engineer's comments? Jewell: Dn some of them. Rlidjani: Do you have any problem with any of the Engineer's comments? Jewell: Not as this moment. I've tried to address as many as I could. Chairman Johnson: On that list specifically are three questions. How will access be provided to the existing well lot? Jewell: For some reason no access was provided to the lot. One thing I guess needs to be clarified, the majority of this property was or is tin-audible) out of Country Terrace. Of course the well lot serviced the entire subdivision. We are connecting to City water, however we are still going to go ahead and provide an access to the well lot because otherwise it would be landlocked. There's an easement between lots 14 & 15 which is a large easement. What we are going to do is actually label it as such and there will be provisions made to make sure that there is a drive-in surface made available for them to access the lot anytime that they want. Rlidjani: Gravel or blacktop? Jewell: Either gravel or concrete. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to address this issue? John Gage, 1675 Country Terrace Way, was sworn by the attorney. Gage: I'm here this evening representing the Homeowner's Rssociation for the Country Terrace Subdivision. Dne of the objections we have to this subdivision is as follows. Country Terrace does not meet the Highway District's standards as a Collector Road, which it could became when you combine our subdivision with the one that is proposed here tonight and Meridian Greens #t^c. Voiced concer^ns about increase in traffic on Country Terrace Road. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 16 Rlso concerned as to what is going to happen to the condition of our road during construction with all the heavy traffic. Who is going to pay to repair it. The developer has made an offer to build an access road in the future from the Meridian Kuna Highway after the lots are sold and money is available in exchange for the Highway Department vacating Calderwood Street. Yet the plat he is submitting doesn't show this road as part of the subdivision. Received a bid od 5150,000 to bridge Ten Mile creek and to build this road to the Kuna Highway to Highway District standards. This 5150,000 is going to add 55,000 per lot over and above the normal development costs. We think it's doubtful that market conditions are going to make this feasible, leaving no funds available to construct this road. If we are wrong and the developer is right about being able to finance this road out of the sale of lots, then let him front the money now to build that road as both an access road for construction and as the primary access to the subdivision. We are therefore suggesting as an alternate to his proposal that approval of the project be predicated on the developer first building a gravel road from the Meridian Kuna Highway to the project as part of the project and then having him also provide a 100X band to pave the road and to put in the curbs, gutters and sidewalks upon completion of selling one half of the lots all to Highway District Standards and from the funds generated from the sale of these lots. Hepper: Do you know whether the developer owns the ground to the west? Gage: The land is available. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Craig Shoemaker, 1901 Country Terrace, was sworn by the attorney. Shoemaker: As President of the Homeowners Association I am here to voice a few of our concerns. One of our main concerns is property value, water situation, and road impact with lot drainage problems. (Further - see tape) Hepper: How many houses are in Country Terrace Subdivision? Shoemaker: Twenty-eight. Crookston: You have dry line sewers in Country Terrace, how about the water? Shoemaker: I would guess that maybe it is there. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 17 Clerk Niemann: Not a dry line water. Crookston: Do you know what the subdivision's plans are about connecting to city sewer? Shoemaker: The majority of the homeowners that I've talked to, we want to stay where we are just the way we are. We do not want to connect. Chairman Johnson: You mentioned you represent the Homeowners, do you have a list of people that you represent or do you represent all of them or the board of directors? Shoemaker: I know I don't represent all of them. I was asked to talk instead of having a bunch of different people come up here. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Norm Fuller, 1103 W. Camellia, was sworn by the attorney. Fuller: We met with the Developers this afternoon and we don't have any big problem, I think we are going to cooperate. Chairman Johnson: When you say, "we" your meaning who? Fuller: The developers of Meridian Greens. We have no interest in connecting on to 3rd Street, their subdivision at all, unless it goes out to Meridian Road then we probably would. Alidjani: When Country Terrace was put together was that a dedicated road or area of an easement or a culdesac or something to extend that road as they are proposing today. Fuller: Yes. Country Terrace way was originally going to go on through which is now Kingsford but they didn't want that blocked off. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Sylvia Evans, 2020 S. Meridian Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Evans: My concern is the property, the easement coming out for Meridian Road would come right beside mine. Also there is a parcel of land sitting back there, what would they put on there because we do have a real water problem. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 18 Pat Thacker, 165 E. Overland Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Thacker: I own the property north of this proposed subdivision. I have some high ground, I have some low ground and then I also share, my property line with five people in Country Terrace. I dug a test hole to see where all the water on the lower part of my property was coming from and that water is groundwater, it subs up, it's about three feet down. It's definitely a wetlands. There is a tremendous amount of duck and geese that live there. The Irrigation District, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District tried to take out all the trees on that ditch, cut them all down, they wanted to put a road on either side and spray it. That also violates 404C, which is a Federal Clean Water Act and the wetlands is also a Federal mandate that they not be destroyed. (Further explanation - see tape) Chairman Johnson: Anyo Susan Baker-Thon, 1889 attorney. Thon: We need some Covenants, the size of us do wish to remain on ne else to testify? Country Terrace Way, was sworn by the assurances for our comfort about the those homes, and access. The majority of our own water and sewer system. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Ralph Lobato, 1712 Country Terrace, was sworn by the attorney. Lobato: I do agree that the access r^oad to Meridian-Kuna Highway be put in first before construction starts. I do differ in opinion on the sewer. I'd like to see at least a connection if we are not individually connected to the city sewer. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Addy Houston, 1771 Country Terrace, was sworn by the attorney. Houston: In reviewing my title insurance there seems to be a discrepancy on property lines on two or three of the homes that adjoins this property and until this is cleared up I would think that something should be held up. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Sid Harmon, 1635 Country Terrace Way, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 19 Harmon: The one point I wanted to make is to ensure that the application process concerned for this property in this development does address the State Stream Rlteration Permit and the Federal 404C Permit procedures to ensure that those permits are looked at as far as the wetlands are concerned. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Steve Anderson, 1713 Country attorney. Anderson: To the Commission, late tonight. To my neighbors and expressing your concerns. will do everything we can to a goad quality project. Terrace Way, was sworn by the I want to thank you for working I want to say thank you for coming I'm sure the builder and myself make sure that this project will be Jewell: I'd like to address some of the subjects that have been brought up here tonight. The future Meridian Greens traffic through Country Terrace probably wouldn't happen one out of a hundred times because they would have to go out of their way to get there. There is no direct access to Meridian Greens. The future road to Meridian Road in exchange for Calderwood is new information to me. I was not aware of it and I don't know where the information came from. We asked the Rda County Highway District if there was any problems in vacating it especially since if it dropped out to Meridian Road it may cause undue traffic there. However, it's possible some access could be made however we'd have to loose a lot and Meridian Greens would have to loose a lot to put it in there plus we would have to get additional right of way from somewhere to be able to punch it through. Whoever mentioned about the bridge there is absolutely correct, there is no way we could ever put a bridge in and develop this property at our expense. We have no intentions. Values of the properties on our proposed development will in general probably exceed those in Country Terrace. The restrictive covenants have been well developed. We do not plan on having any basements. We will be abiding to FHA drainage grading. Chairman Johnson: Northwest Design Service sent a letter to the ACHD - maybe I misunderstood what you said, it's a request is hereby made for the exchange of Calderwood right of way for the new proposed street right of ways as shown on the preliminary plat. Tie that in with your opening comment. MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 20 Jewell: The exchange was in regard to right of ways within the property and ACHD has asked us to resubmit a letter, they prefer that we just go in a vacate it rather than go over it with exchanges. The only other thing was the wetland areas. The wet areas have never been identified or dedicated as wetlands. The well lot and the property north of that are in fact lower than our development, everything drains that way. Our intentions are to intercept it and to drain it off into Ten Mile before it gets to that property. Actually what we will be doing is improving the well lot for Country Terrace Subdivision. Gage: In his original testimony I believe he touched on building this road we are concerned about, yet he just stated that he couldn't possibly afford to build a bridge across Ten Mile Creek, my question is who are we kidding. You don't build a bridge across Ten Mile Creek you can't get access to the subdivision. Jewell: There is suggestion that we implied there would be a road from our development to Meridian Road, this has never been. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry Bertetto, 665 Rntigua, was sworn by the attorney. Bertetto: The question I'd like to ask is this subdivision going to connect to 3rd Way in Meridian Greens? Chairman Johnson: I think the Meridian Greens #2 I think they designate that area south. The extension of 3rd Street would be where the road would connect but on this plat it doesn't show 3rd Street going down that far south. Hepper: Would there be a problem with emergency vehicles having only one access. Alidjani: Yes you do. Jewell: The extension to the future Meridian Greens was my original concept because that was the way that they were going to develop that in the future. 1 approached the owners engineers on it and presented them my conceptual design and asked them if they could foresee any problem at the time, naturally they couldn't comment on it but I left ward for them to let me know if there were. The owner of the property should have had access for this information. If there is no lot, that is correct we do not have legal access. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 21 Alidjani: So you'd have a culdesac. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this request. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXRTION & ZONING W/PRELIMINRRV PLAT: MAWS RDDITION: Chairman Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative from the applicant present? We did receive today one letter that Jack has entered into our record. Basically it's a concern from Dennis Baker not interested in the vacation of Adkins Lane. Pat Teely, 479 Main, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Teely: This application is for an R-8 zone on 9.39 acres, the total subdivision comprises 43 lots for a density of 4.6 units per acre. Well below the density allowed for an R-8 zone however we need that for the dimensional, in other words to get down to 60 foot wide lots. We believe this is consistent with the zoning that you have provide for Mr. Baker in the Danbury Subdivision area. We are providing for the extra right of way far improvements to Pine Street and to Locust Grove and will build these in conjunction with the application. Water and sewer will also be extended north on Locust Grove as part of this application. We have read the Engineer's comments and don't have any problems with what he's requested. Can I answer any questions? Hepper: Do you have any landscaping figured? Teely: There's nothing shown here but we will landscape along the Locust Grove and Pine Street in order to buffer the subdivision. Hepper: Will there be curb, gutter and sidewalk? Teely: That's correct. ~ i MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 22 Hepper: From the edge of the sidewalk to the property line how much landscape area will there be? Teely: We had originally intended far 20 feet. Whatever it would take to build a maintainable four foot berm along there. Hepper: Would the property line be at the top of the berm? Teely: That would be at the right of way at Locust Grove and Pine. There will be a landscape easement in there. Hepper: I see on the map you've gat a couple duplex lots indicated. Teely: Correct. Hepper: I didn't see anything on the application. Do you plan on applying for a couple duplex lots then? Teely: Yes we do. Hepper: Do you have a minimum square footage in mind for the duplexes? Teely: The developer, Mr. Gregory could probably address that better than I. Hepper: What's your minimum square footage proposal for the building lots? Teely: We designated 1000 sq. feet. We would like to keep it between 1000 and 1100 sq. feet minimum. Steve Gregory, 1135 N. Mitchell, was sworn by the attorney, Discussion on Mr. Baker's letter. (See Tape) Hepper: Do you have a minimum square footage for the duplexes? Gregory: Probably 1050 per unit. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else? Richard Parcells, 1095 N. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 23 Parcells: Concerns about traffic impact and a traffic light at Locust Grove and Fairview. I own five acres that is just north of the proposed subdivision. The other question I have would be concerning a drainage ditch that runs along the fence line of my property and the proposed subdivision property. Clerk Niemann: Drdinance states they have to t he the ditch. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Dale Newberry, High Micro Tool, 1410 E. Pine, was sworn by the attorney. Newberry: I just wonder about the advisability of running residential up so close to industrial. With Hi-Micro on the east and the other 52 acres on the south side, there's a large portion that is designated industrial. I seems separation would be good. Concerns about traffic problems because of the buses. The industrial area out there is growing slowly and it seems like the residential is promoted out there it will deter that industrial growth. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Don Bryan, 2070 N. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney. Bryan: I'm here for the same concerns I've had the last couple years, which are school overcrowding and additional traffic. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. We really appreciate your comments on that. There is no question but what - we know that our infrastructure is being stressed with all the development here. (Further explanation - see tape) We did try to make some headway on the water problem. Bryan: Yes but we've made it worse. Atty. Crookston: I received a call yesterday from Andy Harrington, who is the attorney for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and he clarified apparently a previous offer he made to our City Engineer that Nampa Meridian, and this is tentative, he is going to do some research as to what the developers, what rights the developers had obtained from Nampa Meridian to do what they did in that Jackson Stub drain. He said also that tentatively they would do the work and they would pay for the costs if the City would obtain the rights to go on the property to replace that 1B" line with a cc^4" line. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 24 Crookston: I don't think the City has a responsibility but if we can be a instigator of solving the problem, that's up to the Council but the City may be interested in doing that. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #7: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SY JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Chairman Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there someone representing the school who would like to come forward? Chuck Liehe, 600 N. Edgewood Lane, Eagle, was sworn by the attorney. Liehe: I'm representing the Meridian School District tonight and we are requesting a conditional use permit to move the Rlternative School from the 2 1/2 Street address to the end of Lanark Street. The reasons are, first of all we own the property and its larger it would accommodate the school. Evidentally the adjoining property owners don't care because we've had no negative comments about us moving it there and the District has budgeted money to move it. I'll answer questions if you have any. Chairman Johnson: There is a letter from Bill Curtis and is in reference to this request. Letter was read aloud. Alidjani: Did you have any problem with the Engineer's comments? Liehe: No problem with the City Engineer's comments. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Charles Haws, 2815 Arthur Street, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Haws: I have several questions. The first being why is the school district moving the buildings. Chairman Johnson: He gave several reasons. MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PAGE 25 Haws: Yes but where is all the money coming from? What is it going to accomplish to move these buildings down there? Chairman Johnson: I really don't have any answers to that. Haws: But it's on a dead end street, that's going to create more problems in an industrial area. Discussion. (tape on file) Chairman Johnson: So you have traffic, money and parking as concerns, right. Vou have a lot of good concerns and a lot of those things will need to be answered by the School District. Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: Al Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper to pass on a favorable recommendation to approve this Conditional Use Permit. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINRRY PLRT ON MERIDIAN PLACE #3: Chairman Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative present? Julie Parker, was sworn by the attorney. Parker: That portion of the drain that runs common to our west boundary, I think it's Mr. Raleigh Hawe's property to the west there, if it is in fact determined that any of that drain does lay within our property it will be tiled. They are still asking that three to four lots in the culdesac area of what is called Teaco Street be for duplexes. Rlidjani: Can you specifically tell us which lots? Parker: Probably lots 7,8 8 9 of Block 4. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 26 Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Ln., was sworn by the attorney. Howe: I have some concerns about the drain on the west side of this property that runs north and south. There is a drain the that should be put in. The problem with this area is that it has some wets that occurs in the westerly direction primarily in the northwesterly direction and if this t he were not put in it might create a wet spot of some hundred yards or two hundred yards down in a north westerly direction. I understand they are putting in a perforated t he going east and west on their south boundary on this. There is a t he coming dawn on the Stokesbury Lateral in an east west direction from Locust Grove to the half mile point, part of that the is on Jon Barnes's properties and I'm not sure that that boundary or the property line doesn't fall same place in this particular plats area also. Who maintains the ditch and the maintenance for repair or replacement for either the t he or an open ditch situation should a problem arise. I'm not sure that there is an easement granted through subdivisions for repair or replacement of tiles. (Explained further problems w/water) Crookston: If it's an irrigation ditch, which an irrigation district has control over, either an easement or title to. They have the right to go across the property to get to wherever the problem exists. Chairman Johnson: What if it is maintained by the homeowner rather than the irrigation district? Crookston: If it's within a easement or title the irrigation district has the right to go down the easement. Their problem is, is can they go across a lot for another property owners land to get to their easement. That's another question that is a problem. Where there is no easement and it's a ditch that is basically the ditch users, I don't know the answer to that. Discussion Held. fSee tape) Howe: What type of fence will be placed on their west boundary? I would prefer it not to be wood. Chairman Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Liz Bolts, 984 Claybourne, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING PPRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 27 Bolts: Concerns about speeding vehicles, overcrowding of schools, water supply, water pressure and duplex rental situation. Howe: In the northwest corner of this particular piece of platted property there is a concrete irrigation box that splits the water that goes north and then splits it that comes down to my property in a southerly direction. I want an easement in that particular area to access that water and to do what maintenance is necessary to clean that box out and get that divider set so I can shut the water off as it goes to the northerly direction so I can. Chairman Johnson: Dur Engineer's comments address that. Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Alidjani to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with 2 conditions. One is that the minimum square footage of the houses in the subdivision be limited to 1300 square feet, the second would be that the duplex lots not be allowed and that they be building lots of 1300 square foot minimum for the structure. Rlso to provide a walkway access to the Elementary School maybe from Teaco Street or that vicinity. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rlidjani and seconded by Hepper to adjourn at 11:15 P. M. Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS? MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING APRIL 14, 1992 PRGE 28 APPROVED: i ~~',~~ _ J M J HN ON CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _l [ate ~. "'A. ~.. ..~__ JRCK NIEMANN, CITY CLERK pc: Mayor 8 Council, Atty, P & Z Members, Eng., Stuart, Ward, Fire, Police, Gass, Bldg., ACRD, ACC, NMID, Settlers, APR, CDH Mail (8) File (8> clt BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LANARK STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing April 14, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through Chuck Liehe, 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 AM BROSE, FIT2G ERALO BCROOKSTON Attomeya enD Couneeloro P.O. Box l2T MMEIan, IENo aauz TeleOhone 8884181 Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 14, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 14, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within. the City of Meridian and the Applicant owns the property; the property is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1 ii • • described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Industrial, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a private school which the application requests; the Applicant proposes to operate the Meridian Academy at the location which is school for student that have dropped out of public school and are beyond the age of mandatory school requirement but yet the students desire to return to continue their education; enrollment is limited and not all students are accepted. 4. That the Industrial District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 12. as follows: (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) District is to provide for fight in ustrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD d CROOKSTON Attomsye en0 Counselor P.O. Bow t7/ M•nal•n, IaeNo ex~x T•Iplwne SSB-eNl 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is not a specific allowed use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409; however 11-2-407 D. 1. provides as follows: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to an compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2 then be permitted as Conditional uses.an allowed conditional use in the R-4 district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 6. Private schools are allowed as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone; that while the school proposed to operated by the Applicant is in fact operated by Joint School District No. 2, a public school district, the school proposed to be operated is the Meridian Academy which is not in the nature of a public school because of the reason stated above. 7. Other property in the area is generally used for industry and commercial uses; that there are no nearby residences where the school will be located. 8. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 9. That sewer and water is available to the property. 10. That the City Engineer, Meridian Fire Department, Sewer Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and Central District Health Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 11. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has not submitted comments but they may and they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 12. That there was an owner of property in the area that AMBROSE, FITZGERAlO dCROOKSTON Attomeye snE Counselors P.O. Boz 12T Mer161en, ICNo &1612 Talspfrone B66d161 submitted a letter question a school going into the area and requesting that a boundary fence be repaired; there also was one FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3 property owner in the area appeared at the hearing voicing his disapproval of the Application. CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, FITZOERALO SCROOKSTON Attomsys end Counselors P.O. Boa 427 MMICI4n, loauo ex4z Tslspllons SSBd/81 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 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(0) 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: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4 a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should 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 would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. 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 must be met and AM9ROSE, FIT2GERALD B CROOKSTON Atlomeye mE Counselors P.O. BOx 1Y7 MMENn, IArtNo BSSIR TalapNOne BSNIEI complied with, particularly the extension of sewer and water through the property for further extension to the east. 6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted prior to City Council action, must be met; that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5 requirements of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District shall be met. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the fire and Life Safety Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements. 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) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AMBROSE, FIT2G ERALO E CROONBTON Attorneys ane CounMllora P.O. Box ll7 MerlElAn, IEMo B38t2 TalaD~ona BB8~181 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 with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6 ~° ~ ii • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT, INC. REZONE APPLICATION A PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 13, T. 3 ., R. 1 W. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AMSROSE, F1T2G ERALD S CROOKSTON Attomeya a~W Couneeloro R.o. Boa uT Me~IGIan, IENo 83M2 TeleOAOne SSB-H!i The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing April 14, 1992 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through Dave Turnbull, 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 Rezone Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 14, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 14, 1992, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by the Applicant and which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-4 Residential; the FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 area in which Applicants' property is located is developed as a R-4 Residential and the Applicant has developed property in the area has R-4 Residential. 3. The property is a part of The Landing Subdivision; the R-4 zone is the zone that was placed on the property at the time that it was annexed which annexation was at the request of the Applicant; that the Applicant proposes to now have the property zoned R-8 Residential; that the apparent purpose for the change to R-8 is that the Applicant feels such zoning is more appropriate for the land that is adjacent to I-84. 4. That the R-4 District and the R-8 District are described AMBROSE, FITZG ERALO 6 CROOKSTON M~omsys NE Counselors P.O. Bov t2Z MBrlElan, IENo 88NZ TalsDlrons BB&MBl in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1 and 2 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R- 4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. (R-8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.: The purpose of the (R-8) Disc tr ct is t-' o permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units pre acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive PTan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 5. Even though R-8 zoning is requested, the Applicant lists the density as 4.02 dwelling units per acre on the Application for FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 AMSROSE, FIT2GERALO ECROOKSTON Attorneys antl Counaelon P.O. Boz a21 Msrltllan, Itleho s3eaz Telephone BB&N81 preliminary plat which was submitted in conjunction with this rezone request. 6. The significant difference between the R-4 and R-8 zoning is in the bulk and coverage requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; the R-8 Zone allows duplexes, 60 feet of street frontage and 6,000 square foot lots whereas the R-4 zone allows only single-family dwellings and requires 70 feet of road frontage and 8,000 square foot lots as a minimum. 7. That the initial phases of The Landing Subdivision have been zoned and developed as R-4 developments; the other subdivisions in the area are R-4 subdivisions; the property along Waltman lane, which is property to the east of the subject property is a much older area and is developed at an R-4 density, or much less dense; that the original Crestwood Estates Subdivision, while developed before the adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance, is mostly developed at an R-4 density; that the continuation of Crestwood Estates Subdivision, including what is now known as Fenway Park Subdivision, is zoned and developed under the R-4 requirements; that there is property to the west, across Linder Road and adjacent to I-84 which is not in the City limits, that is developed at one dwelling unit per acre. 8. That there was testimony at the hearing objecting to the Application; there were several residents in the Waltman lane area objecting that the increased traffic would overburden the area and the interchange system at Waltman Lane and Meridian Road and East First Street would be totally inadequate; there was FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 testimony that the impact of so many homes would severely overcrowd the schools; there were concerns about the increase of traffic on Linder Road; there was objection based on the size of the lots; there was testimony that there is a bridge on Waltman Lane that could not handle projected traffic. 9. That the Applicant's engineer, Roy Johnson indicated that there was a traffic study in process; that the traffic study has not been received. 10. That comments were submitted by the City Engineer, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, and the Bureau of Reclamation and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 11. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 Applicants' property. 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice AMBROSE, FITZGERALD a cROOKSror+ Attorneys and Counseloro P.O. Box l27 Meddlan, Idaho ex~z Telephone BBBM81 of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 ii • • 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: (a) The R-8 zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is included in the Linder Acres Neighborhood and no Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. (b) The area is not intended to be rezoned in the future and was zoned R-4 within the last two or three years. (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning as the entire area is in the Linder Acres Neighborhood as set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (d) There has been no change in the area or adjacent area which dictate that the property should be rezoned. The area is developed in the R-4 fashion, or even less density, and there is nothing to indicate that the zoning should be more dense than R-4. AM BROSE, FIT2GERALD 6CROOKSTON •ttomsye Intl Counselors p.0. Boz 1E7 Mxltllan,IOMro Bx~z TelepNOne BBBI181 (e) That the property, if designed in an R-8 fashion and under R-8 requirements and limitation would not be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area, which is developed in the R-4 fashion. FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5 (f) The R-8 use would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood but could be disturbing to the property owners in the adjacent subdivisions and in the Waltman Lane area. (g) The property, whether developed in the R-4 or R-8 fashion, would be able to be adequately served with most public facilities, however the density of R-8 would increase the impact on highways and streets over and above the impact that R-4 development would have. (h) R-8 development would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The R-8 zone and development could involve a use detrimental to the R-4 developed property in the area or the general welfare of the area in that the traffic would be increased more than it would be under R-4 development and the R-8 development could lower the property values of the R-4 property. While the development at any density would increase the traffic impact, the impact would be greater at the R-8 density and the area has been largely developed in the R-4 fashion or with less density. (j) Development at the R-8 density would cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if developed as R-4. (k) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is not in the best interest of City of Meridian. 6. It is further concluded that, if the City Council AMBROSE, FIRGERALD d CROOKSTON Attomsys And CounNlOro P.O. Boz ART Mx101~n, IUNo B3E~Y Tsl~pllo~ro SB6N81 disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the comments, recommendations and requirements of other governmental agencies would have to be met and complied with as would the ordinances of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACE AND CDNCll1SI0NS 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 of Law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, based on these AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON AROmeye me Counaelore P.O. Box t2] MerlElan, IGno Bae.x Telavnone BBBiaB1 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: APPROVED:,// _ VOTED VOTED VOTED UOTED `~~ VOTED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GREGORY & MAWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING NORTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 7, T. 3N., R. lE., BOISE MERIDIAN NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF EAST PINE STREET AND LOCUST GROVE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on April 14, 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 Pat Tealey, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AMSROSE. FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attamys ~n0 DounNIM R.o. Boz ~xT MMEI~n, IENw eaezz TNNMwne ~1 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for fifteen days weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 14, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 14, 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 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 9.38 acres in size; it is located in the Northwest Quadrant of the intersection of East Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Road. AMBROSE, FITZG ERA~D d CROOKBTON Attorneys and CounNloro P.O. Box 1Y7 MarlElen, Itleho WN2 Telaplana BBB N61 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as D-2 and the requested Zone is R-8, Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally, residentially, and industrially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the Applicant has an agreement to purchase the property. 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. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned as indicated in paragraph 3 above; that the present use of the property is for agriculture and a residence; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for mostly a single family R-8 subdivision, with a couple of duplexes; the Applicant testified the duplexes would have 1.050 square feet on each side. 10. There were property owners in the immediate area that testified as to the Application; that one owner questioned having FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 residential so close to industrial; another property owner presented concerns about traffic and two people testifying were concerned about drainage and school overcrowding. 11. That the property is between Old Town and the Eastern Industrial Review Area and there is no specific designation in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the area within which the property to be annexed is located; that under Housing Development on page 25 and 26 of the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre and it is the policy that a density of greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres may not be exceeded outside of the Urban Service Planning Area. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 14. That the property can be serviced with City water and sewer. 15. That the Ada County Highway District, Department of AMBROSE, FITZGERALO i CROOKSTON Allpny~.na counwlnt P.O. BOK IZ7 MrtIAIN, IE/110 NM2 TAlplgns!lNN7 Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, School District, City Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation and City Fire Department submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 forth in full. 16. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. Z, and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted a preliminary plat. 17. That the Applicant's representative stated that Applicant would landscape East Pine and Locust Grove Road which would be maintained by a homeowners association; the Meridian Ordinance requires tiling of all ditches included in the area to be annexed as part of the development of the subdivision. 18. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. 19. That the Application notes that the legal description supplied with the Application was not based on a ground survey but on compiled information. AM8f10SE, FITZGEMLD iGROONSTON Anom.y..~e GounNbn vo.eo:rn wraun, a.no we.s r.uFnw. ees«a CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Atlomeye enE CiOUnMlon P.O. Boz IY7 MerW4n, IONo tatwx Telepltoee BSl~e/!1 exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application contained in Section 50-222, Idaho Code, 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. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, who has a Purchase Agreement for the property, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON AKOmeyl eno Counselors V.O. Box 127 Merlolan, loelw exlz TNep8one 8861181 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 as a condition of annexation ditches that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property must be completely tiled, including that portion not located on the property if it is a boundary. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained, however Phase I will have to be developed before Phase II to meet the Fire Department's comments. 11. That the Applicant's property is not specifically included in a defined neighborhood as designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan but is located between Old Town and the Eastern Industrial Review Area; that it is concluded that the property is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan since the proposal is in large part similar to the development of the Old Town area and with the development of Danbury Fair Subdivision and therefore the Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 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 development of the property shall meet the representations of the Applicant and his agents and included in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 i ~ AMSROSE, FITZG ERALD dCROOKSTON Allomeye sn0 Counselors P.O. Roe IZ] MsrlCien, IEetlo eaeez Tslep~ona SSB MBI the Application, and there shall only be the number of duplexes as stated on the preliminary plat and the size of each duplex until shall be a minimum of 1,050 square feet; that the conditions shall also include those stated above and upon issuance of final platting 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; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the conditions are not met and strictly adhered to. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. That the requirements of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District shall be met as well the requirements of the Bureau Reclamation, the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire Department. 15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-8, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7 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 with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to the 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: DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION AMBROSE, PITZGERALD d CROOKSTON AttOtMye end Counselor P.O. Boz eR7 Ma~IElen, Iosoo axes Tslepnona BBBJI81 COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED_~~ - COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED !~~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED __ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~U CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED APPROVED:~~~_ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GLENN L. JOHNSON ANNEXATION AND ZONING SW 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD S CROOKSTON Attomeye an0 Counaalors P.O. Box l27 MarlElAn, 10No aaB/z TalepKOne geB~/81 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on April 14, 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 in person and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 14, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 14, 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 & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 AMRROSE, FIT2GERALO BCROOKSTON Attomeye NE CounNlOra P.O. BoY ~YT MxI01~n, laeno ex.z Talsplrona tlB8i~81 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 8.9 acres in size; it is near the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Meridian-Kuna Highway and Overland Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-2; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-4 and stated that the use proposed would be for R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property to the east is not within the City limits but other land in the area Meridian Greens subdivision is in the City limits and is zoned R-4 but developed at less density than R-4. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property and the owners of record are Steven and Marcia Anderson and Lee R. Stucker and Fae M. Stucker and they have consented to the application to be annexed. 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 parcel of ground requested to be annexed is not presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. As found above the Application requested that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4. The applicant has indicated that the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 i • intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the Applicant has submitted a proposed preliminary plat. 10. There were property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application; the objections were based on increase in traffic, that there was a wetlands area in the property that needed protection, that connection to Meridian-Kung Highway needed to be completed as part of this development, ground water and drainage problems in the area, and concerns about road connection to Meridian Greens subdivision. 11. That the property is in the MERIDIAN HILLS Neighborhood as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that under Housing Development on page 25 and 26 of the Comprehensive Plan, property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre and it is the policy that a density of greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres may not be exceeded outside of the Urban Service Planning Area. 12. That property outside the Urban Service Planning Area, but within the Area of Impact, may be annexed and developed but only at densities allowed; however, the Meridian Zoning Ordinance requires all residential zones to connect to City water and sewer and if the property is outside the Urban Service Planning Area it cannot receive water or sewer. 13. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan AMBROBE, F1T2G ERALD d CROOKSTON Attorneys and CounNlore P.O. Box 177 MM01An, 101t1o &'1812 Tebplans t188~N61 it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLl1SI0NS OF LAW Page - 3 in agricultural activity until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain agricultural pursuits. 14. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 15. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer but since it is outside the Urban Service Planning Area the Urban Service Planning Area must be amended for the City to legally provide water and sewer service and other urban services. 16. Ada County Highway District, the Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, City Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation and City Fire Department may submit comments and such shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 17. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the AMSROSE, FITZG ERALD bCROOKSTON Atbrneya Ntl COYn!llOrs P.O. BOa /2] Meritllen, ItlANo eae/z TalapNOna SSB.NBt Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single- family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 18. That the Applicant stated in the Application that Applicant intends to have a density of about 3.37 dwelling units per acre and stated at the hearing that the house sizes would be a minimum of 1,800 square feet and probably 2,000 square feet plus, with the lot sizes having a range of 8,000 to 11,000 square feet. 19. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomeya end Counselors P.O. Bow aY7 MarlElen, IUaho e3eaz Telspeona BS&aa61 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application contained in Section 50-222; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 AMBROSE, FIRGERALD BCROOKSTON Attomaye anE Couneelon v.o.9o=esT MarlElen, Idelio 83M2 Telephone BSB~~81 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. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 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 before development can occur the Applicant will be required to request and receive an amendment to the Urban Service Planning Area and if the City does not amend the Urban Service Planning Area to include the land requested to be FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF IAW Page - 6 AM BROSE, FITZGERgLD B CROOKSTON Allomaya end Coonaslore D.O. Boz 1YT Menelen, leano exaz Taleplwne l annexed the land will only be able to be developed as land outside the Urban Service Planning Area may be under the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian and if the Urban Service Planning Area is amended, the Applicant shall 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. 10. That since the Applicant's property is in the MERIDIAN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and but the requested Zoning would not be since the land is not within the Urban Service Planning Area and therefore does, at the present time, conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 11. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property could be annexed but the zoning, as requested, shall have to be delayed. Land must be zoned at the time of annexation but the zone requested would be in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the land cannot be zoned. If the Applicant does not consent to having the Application postponed to determine whether the land will be included in the Urban Service Planning Area, it is recommended that the Application be denied. If the land is ultimately included in the Urban Service FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 Planning Area, the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the R-4 density is exceeded or if dwellings other than single family dwellings are allowed and this restriction shall be noted on the plat of the subdivision. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; the concern over the wetlands issue must addressed before the City Council as there have been wetlands along Ten Mile Creek. 13. That the requirements of the irrigation districts and Ada County Highway District shall be met as well the requirements of the Bureau Reclamation and the City Engineer. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD E CROOKSTON Attomeya enE COUneelora P.O. Box 12l MerlElan, IEWo 88814 TaleP8one 88&1181 annexation and zoning of R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - $ 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 w COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED _ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED E,~ ~'- i CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD bCROOKSTON Attomsys NO Counsalore P.O. Boa 1I7 MsRCIAn, IEAno B381Y Telephone l8&H!t 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 zoning 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: APPROVED: 1~--~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9