Loading...
1991 01-14z ~ . • • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JAN[TARY 14, 1992 MINUITS OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEM6ER 10, 1991: (APPROVED) 1: FII~IDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUESTBY CHURCH OF CHRIST & WARRIOR ENTI'RPRISES:(APPROVED) 2: FII~IDINGS OF FACT ODT ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY BRENT BARRUS: (APPROVED) 3: FIIVDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT BY MERIDIAN PLACE LTS & PROPERTIES WEST: (APPROVED) 4: FII~IDINGS OF FACT ON ANNE}CITION & ZONING REQUEST W/PRFT.TMTNARV PLAT BY PETERSON & CAPITAL DEVEI,DPMENT: (APPROVED) 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMNARY & FINAL PLAT FOR SUNSHINE ADDITION: DIANE STANLEY: (APPROVED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: PREL.II~.RY PLAT FOR WHITETAIL SUBDIVISION, R.A. ASSOCIATES:;(APPROVED) 7: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIlHINARY PLAT ON BEPf~TAVIN SUBDIVISION: STUC[~R & INPERWEST DEVECpPMENT: (APPROVED) 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD, HUNTERS GLENN, 7.arunFgON & LEAVELL: (APPROVED) 9: DISCUSSION ON CHANGING THE AREA OF IMPACT: i MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING_ JRNUARY 14 1992 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 p. m. . Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer: Member Absent: Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Guy L. Walker, Pat Fugii, Rich Allison, Lavern Ling, Don Bryon, David Collins, Rory Jones, Sharla & Mike Farrell, Carl & Doris Stucker, Tom & Betty Eddy, Dale Newberry, Steve Moore, Ken Shelton, John Calhoun, Wayne Crookston, Pat Tealy, Lynd Hoover, Robert Donovan, Alloy Schlekeway, Donald Dunn, Tony Bennett: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1991: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FRCT DN REZONE REQUEST BY CHURCH OF CHRIST & WARRIOR ENTERPRISES: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Rlidjani - Absent: Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree 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 Rezone request 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 Carried: All Yea: ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY BRENT BARRUS: The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;Rlidjani - Absent: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 2 The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning request by the Rpplicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicants be specifically required to t he all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the Rpplicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINRRY PLAT BY MERIDIAN PLACE & PROPERTIES WEST: Johnson: Any discussion on this? Hepper: As I remember during our last discussion it was established that the minimum house size would be 1400 sq. ft. and I don't see where that is reflected in the Findings of Facts. Discussion. (TAPE ON FILE) Hepper: I also have a question about the frontage on the lots. Okay I don't have a question. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to amend by adding an additional condition to the Findings and Facts, that the minimum square footage as specified in testimony to be 1400 sq. feet. Motion Carried: 3 - Yea; 1 - Nea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions as amended. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rlidjani - Rbsent: Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: • MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 3 C~ The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone 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 that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, Fire Department requirements, Sewer Department requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, and the other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and recommend to the City Council appro for the applicant's request with conditions set forth in the Findings Law are included in the preliminary and Properties West. seconded by Shearer that we val of the preliminary plat the amendment that those and Facts and Conclusions of plat for Meridian Place LTS Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT BY PETERSON & CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: Any discussion? Shearer: On the plat for this project, in the neighboring plat we required a road leading into this plat and we don't have a road at this time and I think we need to continue that road out of the Meridian Manor. Discussion (Tape on file) - The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Absent: Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANURRY 14, 1992 PAGE 4 The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rnnexation and zoning request 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 that the Rpplicants be specifically required to t he all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the applicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree approve the preliminary plat and to require the applicant to provide a paved connector to Meridian Manor between lots 25 & 26 it be worked out with the City Engineer. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #5: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINRRY PLRT & FINRL PLAT FOR SUNSHINE ADDITION: DIANE STANLEY: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there a representative here to come forward? Rich Allison, 1040 E. Pine, was sworn by the attorney. Rllison: The property under consideration is approximately a little over i/2 acre of property being divided into two parcels on W. 4th Street. Each parcel containing in excess of 12,000 sq. ft., we received all the requirements under ACHD, the City, Meridian Sewer Department and the Engineer's, we are here asking tonight that you consider under section 9-6048 that when an existing subdivision lot be divided only into two parcels that you can waive a normal subdivision requirements and are asking that you consider waiving the requirements under ACHD since there is already an existing roadway, sewer on site, water on site, power, gas and all normal utilities required. Also on the plat we have provided for easements for additional utilities, one of which is to be built in the extension of the sewer line from the north part of the property back to the second parcel. We further would abide by the requirements as outlined by the City Engineer. We do ask for a waiver of the requirement for pressurized • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PRGE 5 irrigation since Nampa Meridian water is of these parcels. We would also note th ditch that needs tiled and boxes would these two parcels. We would like you to City Council suspended the requirements us to record this as a parcel map rather already provided to both at there is an irrigation be provided for each of consider a motion to the under ACHD and allowing than a subdivision. Rountree: Let me see if I understand your request - waiving all the stipulations as specified by RCHD or site specific conditions or? Rllison: Well ACHD requirements most of them address for example drainage plan, site plan, sign plan, a number of things that wouldn't apply to pre-existing property with an existing street. There is currently no curb, cutter and sidewalk to match on the east side of 4th Street so we would ask that that be waived and in reviewing the requirements of ACHD there don't seem to be any that would normally be required if you were just creating two parcels. Surface drainage plan, the property grade is to the east, it falls to the east so we are not going to put any water back on the street. There are a number of plans that required typically under a subdivision that wouldn't really apply to creating two parcels on an existing street with all the existing services in place and that's why we are asking for the waiver. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Mike Farrell, 1222 W. 4th, was sworn by the attorney. Farrell: My only questions is if there is a possibility of having an access for the children that go to school there to have a right of way going across there. Rllison: I reviewed this with the Meridian School District at such time that the property was sold to the Stanley's. Meridian School District received so many complaints from adjacent property owners or owners in that area from parents parking on 4th Street and going to Soccer games and so forth that they felt it was appropriate not to provide an access. I further reviewed with Dan Mabe the possibility of doing so because there were some others that S talked to that live in the area that say they use that as a recreation area for their own benefit. I readdressed that with Dan Mabe of the School District and he said that if we provided the access, which certainly could be done because we are going to provide, and I should probably address this to because I MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JRNUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 6 reviewed with the sewer department the easement they requested and they said that they would work with a 10 foot easement if in fact we would provide graveling for the easement and a crossing on the existing ditch which we are going to t he anyway. That easement could provide for an access for the school kids. He did request that if in fact we did provide that access #1 they wouldn't take it, that being the school district, which we would want to turn it over to them because of liability reasons. If we did provide it he would want the gate to be locked during the summer time so that no parents could part along 4th Street. So there are some stipulations he made there and really preferred that the district not have that access. Rountree: He brings up the question of liability, if it is an easement it is the property owners liability whether it be for pedestrian or sewer access. I think if that easement is there graveled and even fenced and gaited, we are probably fooling ourselves to think that people aren't going to climb the fence and save going around ten or fifteen subdivision lots or whatever it takes to get around to the school and get into the playground. Allison: We are happy to go either way on the issue. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Claude Potts, 1010 W. 4th, was sworn by the attorney. Potts: My mother lives at 1004 W. 4th and I'm basically here on her behalf. As far as an access that is a good idea as far as I'm concerned. Voiced concerns about traffic parking on W. 4th Street. Johnson: Rnyone else? Donald Dunn, 1030 W. 4th, was sworn by the attorney. Dunn: Like I said I live at 1030 W. 4th which is right next to this lot and I don't want no easement next to my place. Johnson: Anyone else? Tony Bennett, 309 W. Washington, was sworn by the attorney. Bennett: I just have a question, we live three houses from the corner of 4th and W. Washington and we walk out our back yard and we are in the school yard and we irrigate. Are we going to have access from our ditch all the way to 4th Street. Voiced concerns MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 7 Clerk Niemann: Yes they are going to t he that ditch along the front of there. Johnson: Anyone else? Seeing none and hearing none I will close the public hearing. Rountree: The irrigation and the waiver are not included in the RCHD comments. You wanted bath those things waived. Crookston: If they are not going to use the live water then the waiver does not apply. Rountree: I have a question for the City Clerk about treating this as a non-subdivision. Clerk Niemann: I've never heard of it before tonight. Crookston: I'll have to look at the Ordinance on that. Johnson: You quoted specifically a section of the code what was it? Allison: Yes I did. When you are only dividing a parcel into two parcels there is a special provision under section 9-604A Subdivision approval required. (Explained - see tape) (Discussion - see tape) Rountree: Is that the ten foot easement shown on the northern portion of the property? Allison: That's correct. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to pass a favorable recommendation on to the Meridian City Council including the consideration of a variance for the irrigation system and because of the existing condition on 4th Street that the subdivision be consistent with what infrastructure is there now, not having to include additional curb, gutter and sidewalk. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #6: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITETAIL SUBDIVISION, R.A. RSSOCIRTES: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 8 Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. We've been presented tonight with a letter from Edson & Patricia Fujii with respect to this application and it will be entered into the record. Is there someone representing the applicant who would like to come forward? Pat Tealy, 479 Main Street, was sworn by the attorney. Tealy: Here representing the applicant Mr. Guy Walker. Whitetail Subdivision is a four lot subdivision on approximately 3/4 of an acre. Lot 1 has an existing home on it and this home would remain. The applicant has asked that pressurized irrigation be eliminated because of the fact that it is a four lot subdivision and to try to put in that type of system would be quite expensive. We propose that we eliminate the irrigation all together to prevent more problems with the drainage. If there are any questions I'd be glad to answer them. Rountree: Have you seen the comments provided by ACRD? Tealy: Ves. Our concern we can work out with them. Rountree: Rre you proposing any entrance improvements for the existing lot with the home on it now in terms of fencing, berms, landscaping - Tealy: The berms and landscaping we don't feel would be, there would be a safety problem there on it's entrance on to Cherry Lane. Rountree: Have you read all the comments from the City Engineer? Tealy: See I have and I've talked with Gary about them. Rountree: What is your proposed solution to the question of maintenance of your storm drainage pit? Tealy: This is something we will work out with the Highway District through their maintenance of the system or the adjacent land owners. Rountree: What's the distance to the remainder of the subdivision to the north? Tealy: There's approximately 750 ft. to the subdivision to the north. Hepper: Questioned the dwelling size. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JRNUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 9 Tealy: There is an addendum page and it is 1300 sq. feet. Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? Edson Fujii, 4345 Pasadena Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Fujii: I wondered what the seepage bed consists of? One of our concerns listed here regards water that ponds up on the northwest corner of the proposed lot 4. Tealy: The seepage bed is intended strictly for the street drainage and it's a subsurface system. Explained 8 commented on the letters concerns (see tape) Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Seeing and hearing none I will close the public hearing. Hepper: On the application on the second page it says zoning classification R-4 which allows four building lots per acre and it also states up above lots per acre there is 5.3 per acre. This is not consistent. Crookston: There could be a problem then because in the comprehensive plan 1 believe the designation of the R-4 description states that it's got to be four units per acre. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #7: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON BETHHAVEN SUBDIVISION: STOCKER & INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Is there someone from the applicant to come forward? David Collins, 3350 Rmericana Terrace, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Collins: The application has been submitted for Bethhaven Subdivision is on 49.27 acres and has a total of 191 residential lots proposed with three lots being non residential lots also proposed in the subdivision. The net density is 3.88 units per MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 10 acre. The comment sheets back, I'd like to address a couple of the issues on those. The ACHD's recommendation is tabling until such time as a traffic study and a master drainage plan has been completed. They have recently changed some of the requirements on their drainage planning for preliminary plats. I am working with them now on developing a master drainage plan for this. Essentially the drainage will go to ponding under ground disposal systems and excess flow possibly into landscape areas. We are also preparing the traffic study at this time. The Bureau of Reclamation's comments regarding the Nine Mile Drain, the east boundary of this subdivision conforms to the boundary line of the Nine Mile drain as established by the Bureau of Reclamation. They own that land. The Nine Mile Drain is not on an easement through this section and we do not overlap the ownership whatsoever. Joint School District No. 3 I will get the highway design to him, it's RCHD standard design so I shouldn't see that there would be any problem with school buses negotiating various radius's on that. The City Engineer's comments I have seen. I would say #6 probably I can negotiate my way out of that way since the Nine Mile Drain is on fee owned land and we do not overlap it and there are no easements involved in that. Everything else we have no difficulty with. Rddressing Cherry Lane, we are proposing to deal with it in the same manner and it will be shown in better detail on the final plans and final plats. Rs far as right of way work the Highway District is requesting sixty six and the City's plan requires eighty so we therefore will be providing seven foot individual lot owned by the homeowners association for "future right of way". I will answer any questions you may have. Rountree: Your were going through the City Engineer's comments and one of the comments was the stub street on the west boundary going into what now is church property, I don't think that is appropriate. Collins: I'm going to have to check into that one. Rountree: What the phasing on this development? Collins: The initial phase is to be the northeast corner between the church and the Stucker property. Johnson: How many lots affected in the initial phase? Collins: I think 31 lots. Rountree: You indicated there would be landscaping or some kind of improvement on Cherry Lane, what did you have in mind? MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 11 Collins: Similar to what is along the frontages on Locust Grove on the east side. Rountree: I suggest you check into that before you jump into that. That should be included on the final plat. Crookston: What are the three non-residential lots? Collins: Drainage ponds and R.V. storage. Rountree: Do you propose any kind of barrier on the laterals of Nine Mile Creek, a chain link fence or anything? Collins: Yes it will be fenced. The Rutledge will be piped, the drain ditch that comes up on the south boundary will be routed along the south boundary then north to a five acre tract that was recently deeded out and it will be piped through there. Hepper: Do you have any idea from the back side of the sidewalk to the actually property lines, the common area there where the berm and stuff is, how much area do you have there? Collins: Nine feet of landscaping available. Hepper: So they couldn't build their fences any closer than nine feet from the sidewalk. Collins: Right. Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? Steve Moore, 2511 W. Cherry Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Moore: I'm representing our Church. We are hoping to coordinate with this. Wanted to clarify that the Rutledge Lateral will be covered. How will the pond affect us? Collins: Basically we are going to use gravel for the storage, it won't be an open pond. It will either be solid gravel or some open gravel area and turf over other portions protected by engineering fabrics so it doesn't fill up with dirt. Johnson: Rnyone else? Alloy Schlekeway, 2090 W. Pine, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 12 Schlekeway: Question on the drainage ditch on lot 32 and the irrigation pond back there. Is this the one that will be filled in? Collins: We have to maintain actual drainage ditches and we have to maintain active irrigation ditches. We will pipe everything that is conceivable to pipe. We will maintain your access to it. Johnson: Anyone else? Hearing and seeing none I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council with two conditions, one concerning the access on the west side of the property be re-evaluated and placed in a logical location and second that after 100 lots are developed in the subdivision that the additional access to Cherry Lane be provided so there is two access points to the subdivision. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT FOR PUD, HUNTERS GLENN, ZACHRESON & LERVELL: Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative present? Rory Jones, 815 W. Washington, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Jones: I am an attorney here in Boise and I am here on behalf of this applicant, Bill and Lucille Leavell who are purchasing this property from the Zachreson Company. Presented maps and gave further explanation. This is 40 units on 3.05 acres or 13.1 units per acre. This is a 1.7 million dollar project. The units will rent for E650.00 a unit, they are 1100 sq. ft. units with 2 1/2 bathrooms. We are seeking in this application a zoning change. We are seeking a change to R-15 to accommodate this use, there is also a conditional use application for PUD and that is because we are seeking private roadways only within the development itself. ACHD has determined that all the turn grounds are all sufficient for trucks and emergency vehicles. Traffic counts have been performed at Washington and 5th Street, there are now 200 trips a day at Washington and 5th Street which is 10X of that intersections capacity. This will increase from 200 to 400 trips thereby increasing the use to about 30% of capacity. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JRNURRY 14, 1992 PAGE 13 The other access routes that we propose are Pine & State both of which are arterials. There was a comment from the Fire Department that there may be a need for an additional access point or expansion of existing routes. There is a reference in the City Engineer's report to improving the width or provision made for Carlton and Washington because both are 1/2 width streets. We would respectfully submit that the primary access from the Fire Station would be neither of those two streets. The Fire trucks would come out of the station, go south on Meridian to Pine and then from Pine east to 5th Street, and then from 5th Street north to the project. So there should be no Fire Department concern about the ability to get units there. (Explained further - See tape) Shearer: Is there any possibility of getting a street stubbed out to pick up a future extension of Bradley? Robert Donovan, 3504 Tulera, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Donovan: Showed where street for future access is on map. Rountree: You mentioned some traffic studies, would you run through some numbers for that. Jones: The traffic study revealed that Washington and 5th Street has 200 trips per day which was 10% of it's capacity. We would increase that by 400 trips which would be 30% of the intersections capacity. Donovan: Hubble Engineering did the traffic count. Hepper: How many bedrooms are these units? Donovan: Two bedrooms, two and a half bath. Hepper: What about this laundry bldg.? Donovan: That's strictly for the people that don't have their own washer and dryer. Unit will have full laundry hookups. Hepper: That access to the north there, you said that if there was ever a street brought up there that those parking spaces could be eliminated. Donovan: Yes, but they don't really need to be because that is 24' through there now but if we wanted to make a wider roadway we could do that, but we wouldn't take all of them out. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 13, 1992 PAGE 14 Rountree: What about fences? Donovan: Wood fence unless we have a problem with horses. Rountree: You show a couple of elevations, the last one you put up there looked like a single level, are those the handicapped units? Donovan: Yes. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Lynd Hoover, 1318 E. 4th, was sworn by the attorney. Hoover: We have two apartment complexes there plus we have another one of 44 units going in on 2 1/2 Street, there has to be some other access or some road improvement before these are not going to create a real mess. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing and seeing none I will close the Public Hearing. Discussion. (See Tape) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in addition to the conditions normally stated in that I would like to see that a condition be put that the plan or plat show that the area in the northwest corner be available far future access to the north. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to pass a favorable recommendation to the Meridian City Council along with the recommendations from ACRD as it relates to transportation in this particular area. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: (Discussion on zoning - see tape) ITEM #9: DISCUSSION ON CHANGING THE RRER OF IMPACT: Crookston: Explained changes in the area of impact and our current boundaries. (See tape) MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE 15 Crookston: The Planning & Zoning Commission needs to evaluate whether or not we want to actually go ahead and make a proposal to the County Commissioner's that the City of Meridian Rrea of Impact be extended at least in this area and then any other changes that you deem appropriate. We propose to take our area of impact from 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road to Chinden Blvd. and the City of Boise says they want this area ultimately that makes the two area of impacts overlap. What happens then is there has to be a special election for those residents in the overlapping area to decide which area of impact they want to be in. If there is no area of impact, if for some reason we could come to an agreement with the City of Boise and we claim one part or the County says we don't like it, and there is no real conflict between Boise and Meridian then it goes to the District Court and they decide. Johnson: We've had an engineer do a survey with respect to whether we could service that from a sewer standpoint and we can. The second thing is the City of Boise has proposed the area of impact to be extended one quarter of a mile west of Eagle up on McMillan Road north, they have a developer they want to satisfy that wants to develop west of Eagle Road. Rs a body the City of Meridian Officials oppose that because we don't want to come any closer really than they are at this point. (Discussion - See Tape) - Final decision to have a workshop to figure out a proposal. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P. M.. Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE) Rttest: RPPROVED: J JO N, CHRIRMAN BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ZACHRSON COMPANY, AN IDAHO CORPORATION AND WILL IAM D. LEAVELI_ AND LUCILE M. LEAVEI_I_ REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE-MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing AM BROSE, FITZG ERALD dCROO KSTON Attorneys end CoO naelora R.D. BOY 027 MerlE len, IEafto 89801 TplepNOne BBBJ0B1 January 14, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners appearing in person, 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 and the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 14, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 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 one of the Applicants owns the property, which property is described in the application, which description is incorporated herein; that the adjoining properties to the north, south, east, and west are zoned R-15 Medium High Density Residential; that the Applicants desire to keep the property compatible with the surrounding area. 3. That the property is already zoned R-8 Medium Density Residential; that the Applicants request that the property be rezoned to R-15 Medium High Density Residential; that the property requires a conditional use permit for a planned unit residential development a 40 unit apartment complex with a land use density of 13.1 units per acre, which is the use the application requests; that such use requires a conditional use permit in any zone where allowed. 4. That the R-15 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows: (R-15) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of- tFie~S)~istrict s to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums. AM BROSE, FIT2G ERALD BOROOKSTON Atlomaye end Counselors P.O. BOY 627 MerlE lan, IEano 8381E TaleO~ane B88~1181 5. That the property is located in the OLD TOWN area as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the OLD TOWN is described in the Plan at page 23 as follows: OLD TOWN Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Old Town should continue to serve as a shopping, as well as governmental and public activity center. In recognition that its shape and character will change with additional population growth and development, the Comprehensive Plan sets the stage far the rejuvenation of Old Town, as per mixed-land-use policies and per market and economic trends. Probable mixed-uses for Old Town could be specialty commercial, higher density residential, offices, medical facilities and public and semi-public facilities. 6. That the use proposed by the Applicants is set forth above. 7. That planned residential development of a 40 unit complex in a district an R-15 Medium High Density Residential District as proposed by Applicants is an allowed conditional use in the R-15 district. 8. That the subject property is presently vacant and has not been used for many years; that the property has no irrigation canals or facilities on the property; that there are no visible hazardous areas on the property. 9. That the property does not have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector; that the property does not have direct access to a park or open space area as required in 11-2-408 B. 3.; that the plan presented for development shows a small picnic area. 10. That sewer and water is available to the property and AMBROBE, FIT2GERALO BCROOKBTON Arrorneya antl Counaelora P.O. Box a2T Meritllan, Itlaao 838/2 Telapftone 888-H81 is required; that the City Engineer, Central District health Department, Meridian School District, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, and the Ada County Highway District, and Health and Welfare Department may submit comments which are AMBROSE, FIT2GERAlD 80ROOKSTON Attornaya ana Counsalora P.O. Boz e7T MarlElan, ItlaNo B3NP Telephone BBB-u81 hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 11. That the access to the property from East First Street, the major street in downtown Meridian, is presently obtained either on Washington or Carlton Street portions of both streets are only one-half of a street wide; That there are already existing apartment complexes near Applicant's property that also gain access by means of Washington and Carlton Streets. 12. That there was testimony submitted at the public hearing which indicated that the access and roads to the project should be improved; that Ada County Highway District commented that Applicant's proposal to the Highway District was tabled pending receipt of a detailed traffic study and master drainage plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to 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; and that the City has authority to grant re-zone petitions pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 5. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a zoning amendment and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6511, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-415 E. 2. b. and 11-2-416 F. 2. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 6. 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 new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The area is located in the OLD TOWN which is designed for residential and other uses which support residential needs and a mix of those uses and a rezone of the subject property is in line with that designation. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Bos a2T McOEIan, Idano B3ea2 Tllepnpne 888-a~81 (c) Since the area where the property is located is already zoned R-8 such indicates the new zoning would not be contrary to the allowed uses in the area and would be in line with existing adjacent developments in the area. (d) The access to the property is not good and should be improved in line with the guidelines and requirement of Ada County Highway District or the access should be by another route; the requirement of 11-2-408 B. 3. that the property have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector has not been met and such, or similar access should be provided; that such requirement will not, however, limit the rezone but should be addressed and be a condition of the rezone, if granted by the City Council. (e) That the property is designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) The proposed use should not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property will be able to be adequately served with public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water is required. (h) The proposed use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services which cannot be met by the Applicant and therefore should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. (j) Development, if performed in line with requirements of the City and Ada County Highway District, should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature or major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled AM BROSE, FITZG ERALO iCROO KSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.G. BOY <2Z Menaian.ldeno Basaz Telapnone 888-NBA Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use is designed and should be constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not. be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the access and traffic requirements of the City and the Ada County Highway District should be met and if they are, traffic should not increase significantly because of the proposed use. e. That the property has available to it sewer and water service. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services if the Applicant meets the requirements of the City and Ada County Highway District and the use would not be not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking layout must meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 8. That the City has judged this Application for a AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Atlornsye an0 Couneelon P.O. BoK ~P7 MapEIAn, IONo ~8•] TelapKOne BS&~~81 zoning amendment and Conditional use permit for a planned unit development upon the basis of guidelines contained in 11-2-416 and 11-2-418 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 AM BROSE, FITZG ERALD BCROO KSTON Atlorneye and Counaelora P.O. Boz X27 MerlGlan, IEa~o B38~Y Telepftone 888-H61 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 9. It is further concluded that any comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, the Ada County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire Department, will have to be met and complied with. 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 COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED~~' VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone and 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 and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the requirements of the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District and the Meridian Fire Department. AMBROSE, FITZOERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys end COUnN10ro P.O. Box t3] Meridlen, IENo 83843 TsIePKOne B88J'81 MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: