Loading...
1991 08-13., A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 MINUPES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD. JULY 9, 1991: (APPROVED) 1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY EDWARD & JOYCE UTELY: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING BY PRIEST , STUHft & HUNEMILLER & PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SUNBURST SUBDIVISION: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON BENHAM SUBDIVISION BY B.W. A JOINT VE~TI'CTf2E: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 4: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON PROFOSID AMINDMENTS ~ THE ZONING & DEVIIAPMEN'P ORDII~ANCES: (APPROVED) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper: Members Absent: Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Mr. & Mrs. C.L. Morgan, Ed & Joyce Utley, George & Wilma Strasser, Pat Fabricius, Don & Nancy Brigham, Keith Jacobs, Ruth Crow Ernest Hepper~Tom & Joan Priest, Wayne Crookston, Jack Ri.ddlemoser, Dan Torfin, Roy Johnson, Russ Hunemiller, Clyde Brinegar, Vasile Petrutiu~ Elenora Johnson, Jessie Spangler, Al Chastain, Grant Lee: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1991: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held July 9, 1991 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY EDWARD & JOYCE UTLEY: Johnson: I will now open the Public .Hearing, is there someone that would like to come forward and address the commission? Edward & Joyce Utley, 37 Riveria Estates, Eagle was sworn by the attorney. J. Utley: We plan to build an owner occupied duplex, with a 38 ft. drive. There will be plenty of parking, there is about 5/8 of an acre. Questioned ACRD requirements for curb & gutter. Shearer: Eor the record, this is within 300 feet of my place so I will abstain. Rountree: Do you own these two lots that front 22 Street? J. Utley: Yes, we've owned them for thirteen years. The houses on each side, at one time we owned 1421 but we have sold it. Rountree: Okay, so you don't own either one of those. J. Utley: No. Rountree: Do you propose to put any landscaping along the driveway between those two homes to accomodate those residents needs? J. Utley: I'm not sure yet what we are going to do but it will look nice. Does the drive have to be blacktop or can it be gravel? Rountree: I believe it has to be surfaced, but maybe the City Clerk can respond to that. Clerk Niemann: I don't think we have any requirements. Crookston: I believe that they do. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #2 Johnson: We will check on that. Rountree: Do you have approximate square footages of the individual duplex units? J. Utley: The one I'm planning on is about 3400 sq. ft.. Presented picture to Commission. Rountree: Any idea of what rental range you would be within? J. Utley: Rental, I'm not sure. A friend has some which are not in Meridian and she said between $450.00 and $500.00 a month. Hepper: I see here they have single car garages, is there City Ordinances on residential dwellings for a two car garage, does that apply to duplexes? Clerk Niemann: As far as I know it does. Hepper: So this would have to be changed to two car garages. Utley: Yes I think it would accomodate it. Hepper: It also shows a fence on just one place, are you going to fence any of the other? Utley: Yes. We are planning on chain link. Johnson: Anyone else from the public to testify? Don Brigham, 1403 E. 22 St., was sworn by the attorney. Brigham: One time this was proposed earlier and the Fire Marshal said they couldn't build back there, what has changed now that has allowed this? Johnson: We do have their current comments, I cannot tell you about the history. They do not have any objection to it at this point. Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Seeing and Hearing none I will close the Public Hearing on this issue. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to recommend approval to the Meridian City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING BY PRIEST, STUHR & HUNEMILLER & PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SUNBURST SUBDIVISION: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. Crookston: I need to step down due to a conflict of interest. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #3 Johnson: Mr. Riddlemoser will be replacing Crookston for this item. Roy Johnson, 9225 Chinden Blvd., was sworn by the attorney. Johnson: I am here representing the applicant tonight. This subdivision that we are proposing is a 35z acre parcel at the corner of .Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. We have 126 lots and we are asking for a zoning of R-4, single family. We don't have any problems with any of the comments made. Along Cherry Lane we have a twenty foot landscape easement, and the proposal is to construct about a three foot burm with a three to four foot fence on top of it. The pressurized irrigation system will run along the rear lot lines. Shearer: I was wondering about the irrigation comments.They are very concerned about an open ditch and basically requested that it be tiled didn't they? Johnson: Yes. There is an existing ditch that goes along parallel to Cherry Lane. What we are going to do is move it to the north outside the right of way and leave it as an open ditch. They don't feel this is a good idea so we will do whatever they require. Rountree: Questioned whether any comments were received from ACHD. You show a street stubbed out in your preliminary plat and kind of a void between there and Sunnybrook and the step street off of Rebecca, I suspect your going to get some indication that that may want to be tied through that parcel at some point and time. Johnson: That's what we anticipate. Rountree: Is there enough distance there to provide adequate road curvature. Johnson: Yes. Rountree: I see some potential conflicts on Ten Mile with access in and out of that subdivision as well as access in and out of Cherry Lane. Have you given any thought of making that a four way intersection. at that point or possibly moving that intersection to the north? Johnson: We are well above ACRD requirements. We have one: thing that affects that and that's the comments by the City Engineer. We have a sewer shown going through lot 16 from Ten Mile and coming over to Jubilee. The reason for that is by the time we get to the east side of this property our sewer line is pretty shallow. By cutting accross there we can save about a foot of drain. Explained further on sewer. Rountree: Could you explain the type of residential area your proposing? Johnson: Maybe Mr. Hunemiller could answer that. Russ Hunemiller, 282 Parliment Court, Boise was sworn by the attorney. Hunemiller: Prices of homes I'm looking at $75 on up to $100,000.00. Can you give me a comparable neighborhood in Meridian? Hunemiller: No I can't. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #4 Rountree: Do you plan on providing the square footages as outlined in our Ordinances? Hunemiller: I assuming right now that they will be 1200 sq. ft.. Hepper: Would that be something that you would stipulate on the plat, that they be minimum of 1200 sq. ft., or would they be free to put in a 1,000 sq. ft. lot? Hunemiller: No, I'd probably have nothing wrong with 1200 sq. ft.. Johnson: It would be an open subdivision, you wouldn't be the only builder right? Hunemiller: No I won't. Hepper: On the landscaping over on Ten Mile, what did you have in mind there? Hunemiller: I'm not sure that on that side there will be burm. There may be an elevation raise of 18" or something like that but not like the front. Hepper: The property owners will be building fences right up the the sidewalk? Hunemiller: No, we'll fence that, we've got a ten foot easement there for the landscaping. Hepper: Here on blk. 6, it looks like an irrigation ditch, will that all be tiled? Hunemiller: No, I will if I have to but I'm going to try not to. We will work that out with the irrigation. Riddlemoser: Is there any drainage from any surrounding property that presently goes through this property? R. Johnson: Not that I know of. Riddlemoser: So there's no drainage water that goes accross this property? R. Johnson: Not that I'm aware of. Riddlemoser: There will be no modifications of any kind will be made to any of these irrigation facilities without the consent of Nampa Meridian or Settlers as it affects them. R. Johnson: That's right. Riddlemoser: And that in the event that there is a ditch to be tiled that your plans to the it will be approved by Nampa Meridian or Settlers or the City Engineer of the City of Meridian. R. Johnson: Yes. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #5 Rountree: What are you going to do with your storm water? R. Johnson: There is the existing ditch and according to the comments that were submitted by the Bureau of Reclamation we could have some water run into there after we provided detention and both settling and skimming. A good part of it will have to be done by drain fields. Hepper: Do you have any lots designated for that? R. Johnson: No, Ada County Highway District allows us to put drain fields either adjacent to or within the right of way and we could do those every so often. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else to testify from the public? Clyde Brinegar, 5190 N. Locust Grove, was sworn by attorney. Brinegar: Asked for a clarification of the Rutledge Lateral as to the impact on the property that would be to the north. I generally support the idea. Chairman Johnson: Explained procedures. Anyone else from the public? Ernest Hepper, 1750 N. Ten Mile Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Hepper: I have a couple of concerns. One is the traffic on Cherry Lane. Are there any plans to handle the traffic? Chairman Johnson: The Council does make recommendations when they see a traffic problem but they have no control over the streets. We have no jurisdiction over the streets. Rountree: One point we might want to add is that these subdivisions on these arterial roads are required to be a forty foot right of way from center on one side of the road. That would be available for future expansion if needed. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing and seeing none, I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to recommend approval for annexation and zoning. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #6 ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON BENHAM SUBDIVISION BY B.W. A JOINT VENTURE: Chairman Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there someone from the applicant to come forward. Keith Jacobs, 7025 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Jacobs: We are asking for a rezone annexation of a parcel that contains about 61 acres. We are asking for 210 lots residential. The size of the lots will be seven to eight thousand feet. We have commercial and limited office that we are asking for. This project is between Fairview near Pine Street. We are planning to start on both ends and come into the middle thereby not having a problem with fire department coming in and only having one access for this particular development. We will work with the irrigation districts, Nampa-Meridian, Settlers, BLM and the City to the and meet the requirements. There is an existing sewer that runs through this project and we would implicate involvement meandering through here. There are some areas where we have to cross back lot lines to get from street to street. There is lot 35 that is proposed to be a park and that lot because of the sewer is unusable for building so we are proposing a park to be taken care of by the homeowners association. Rountree: Could you point out the various zoning requests that you are talking about on your map? Jacobs: Presented the zoning requests for the lots to the Commission. Chairman Johnson: Where is lot 35? Jacobs: (explained) Rountree: No comments from ACHD? Jacobs:. We've submitted the traffic plan and that's who we are working with, I would presume they would be their standard comments but I'm not sure. I don't have any actual figures for traffic with me. Rountree: You've indicated you have some common area as well as the park that would be the homeowners responsibility, is the covenants and so forth empower the homeowners association to collect fees to take care of that so it doesn't become a patch of weeds? Jacobs: I would believe it would. Hepper: Do you have a time schedule? Jacobs: We would start this year, as soon as we can. Hepper: So you would break ground this year, do you know which phase that would be, the Fairview end or the Pine Street end? Jacobs: I don't know. Hepper: Is there irrigation ditches that run through there? C~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13r 1991 PAGE #7 Jacobs: Yes. • Hepper: Would all other irrigation ditches back through there be tiled? Jacobs: Yes. Hepper: Is there any burros or landscaping proposed? Jacobs: At this time I'm not aware of itr just the park. I'm sure that there will be some landscaping required for the commercial and the limited office. Hepper: You also stated in your application that the minimum square footage would be 1200 sq. ft.? Jacobs: That's correct. Johnson: What would be the upper end price for the homes your planning? Jacobs: Referring to the application it would be $70,000 to $100,000.00. Crookston: Voiced concerns about the one access. What is the existing zoning on this land now? Jacobs: It's R-8 and RT now. Johnson: Anyone else to testify from the Public. Pete Petrutiv, 1295 Locust Grover was sworn by the attorney. Petrutiu: Asked for explanation of where exactly commercial and residential will be. Voiced concerns that 210 lots is to many. Really does not agree with this. Johnson: Anyone else from the Public? Elenore & Rod Johnsonr 8306 W. State, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. R. Johnson: Mainly we had trouble interpreting the map as to where our property was. We also have one acre of ground down here that we purchased which the canal and that sewer line has gone through. I want to make mention publicly that when they put that through'therer we gave and received a written agreement with: the people that put that through there that when we develop our ground we would have rights to tap on to it. We really don't see any problem. Our only concern is that provisions would be made for a middle ground reach that they do their thing and when it comes time for us to develope ours that their won't be a problem. Chairman Johnson: I'm sure you realize that we can't make any quarantees that would satisfy you tonight. I would think that this would be an asset to what you want to develope later. Crookston: Asked that the Johnson's show him on the map where their property is located. We need to-have some kind of additional access points not only for this development but for possible future development. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING • • AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #8 Dan Torfin, Hubble Engineering,. 7025 W. Emerald,. Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Torfin: I just wanted to point out that there is a secondary access proposed that would align going easterly over to Locust Grove. Chairman Johnson: Anyone else from the public to testify? Ruth Crow,. 8921 Sunflower Crt., Boise,, was sworn by the attorney. Crow: I have a property that is adjacent to this and it has a drain ditch on it and it looks like there is 10 to 15 homes that are proposed that would just be right on the bank of this ditch, it's very deep and I feel it's very dangerous. I would either propose that they build a six foot high fence or meet the concerns about that somehow. Chairman Johnson: The irrigation district has addressed those same concerns. Crow: I'm also concerned about an exit to the west. I wondered how they are going to get that road out. Could it be possible for them to build a fence along Five Mile Creek? Chairman Johnson: That is something that the City will address. Anyone else to testify? Jackie Spangler,. 11770 Goldenrod, Boise,. was sworn by the attorney. Spangler: I was just wondering if they have thought about the impact the 210 homes will have on our schools. Johnson: There is a letter from the School District that:. states those same concerns. Anyone else from the public? Albert Chastain, E. Fairview,, was sworn by the attorney. Chastain: My concern is about the irrigation ditch, as I understand it it comes right in between the property to be developed. They have addressed all the other ditches but they did not address the Farmer's Ditch. This ditch is not controlled by Nampa Meridian Irrigation, the farmers maintain it. Will these subdivisions going in get their water from that ditch or where will they get their water for their irrigation? Johnson: The City Engineer in his comments specifically states that there are some farmer type ditches that were not addressed,. which means that they do have to address that. I believe that Mr. Jacobs has reviewed the Engineer's comments and have indicated to me that there are no problems with those. Jacobs: No problem. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? Grant Lee,. 3429 N. Cloverdale,, Boise,. was sworn by the attorney. Lee: If this is approved this would completly surround my property. Voiced concerns about roads,, access, ditches. (TAPE ON FILE) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #9 Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing and seeing no-one else I will close the Public Hearing. Rountree: We have some of the same :concerns that we had at the last development that was just down the road from this one as far as access,. small enclaves and the potential for additional enclaves, the potential for who knows what in the County in terms of industrial or commercial activities adjacent to a residential area. Explain to me what happens with the County on these commercial properties if commerical developments go in there and aren't annexed into the City. Clerk Niemann: I don't know that that is really zoned commercial under the county. I haven't checked on it. As far as 2 know all that is pretty much rural transition. Shearer: I don't think we can completely look at the impact on Pine and so on. It's the same story as every single development,. the development comes first then the roads afterwards. We can't build the roads until after we have the development. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Shearer to recommend approval to the City Council for the annexation and zoning. Motion Carried: Two Yea: One Nea: ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AAID DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: Johnson: Anybody have any questions on these Findings? Rountree: It reads to me that there is no CUP in R-4, is that correct? Crookston: Yes. 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 of Law. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - absent. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Meridian Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances should be approved and adopted. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn at 9:00 P.M.: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 13, 1991 PAGE #10 Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: i~ .TTM .T(? ATTEST pe: Mayor & Council, P & Z Members,. Atty, Bldg., Eng., Police,, Ward,. Stuart, Gass, Fire, ACHD, NMID,, CDH,. Settlers Mail (3) File (3) BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EDWARD AND JOYCE UTELY REZONE APPLICATION 1411-1421 EAST 2 1/2 STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FIT2GERALO B OROOKSTON Attomeye anE Counblon P.O. Box ~Y7 M6rIG19n, IENo Bae~x TelaD~one BBB~N81 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing August 13, 1991 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner 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 was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 13, 1991, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 13, 1991, 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 Applicants, Edward and Joyce Utley, which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned Community Commercial (C-C); the area in which Applicants' property FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 is located is developed as a residential area; that some of the nearby land, even though zoned similarly to Applicant's property as C-C, is used as residential property. 3. That the Applicants propose to construct an owner occupied duplex on the property. 4. That the C-C District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows: (C-N) Community Business District: The purpose~fe (C- ~stric~is~ permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall give direct access to transportation arterial or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the property is contained in the NORTH CURVE AMBROSE, F1T2G ERALD B CROONSTON Atlorneya snA GOUna910ro P.O. eoa @7 MariEiM, laano 83812 ralaonona eea//ai neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods are defined in the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows: "Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area wi uni orm characteristics of a size comparable to that usually served by an elementary school or a small business convenience center or a local park. Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to one and one- half miles across is usually used for planning purposes. It has facilities within easy walking distances and provides the basis for community identification." 6. That that portion of the property where the duplex is to be located does not have frontage on 2 1/2 Street; that the FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 1 AMRROSE, FITZGERALO 6CROOKSTON Mtomeye NC Counmbro P.O. Boz X27 Merlelen, IGIw x+e~z Telephone 8B8-N81 portion of the property to be used for the duplex is presently vacant property, 7, That sewer and water is available to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees, 8. That comments were submitted by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Police Department, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, and the Meridian Sewer Department and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 9. That the comments submitted by the Fire Department stated that the driveway between the residences at 1411 and 1421 East 2 1/2 Street would have to be kept clear year around for access into the property. 10. That the sewer department stated that the duplex would be built over the sewer service line for 1411 E. 2 1/2 Street and that that line should be abandoned at the main line and a new line installed to service both of the units of the duplex and that an easement should be granted to 1411 E. 2 i/2 Street to allow access to the sewer line. 11. That in regard to the comments by the Ada County Highway District there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks in the area at this time nor is the roadway a 41 foot back to back roadway, 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 FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' property. 2. 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. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 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 AMBROSE, F1T2GERALD 6CROOKBTON Altomeye entl Counselors P.O. Box l2T Meritlien, ItlNo eaeaz TelePSOne BB&NBL 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 in the NORTH CURVE neighborhood 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. (c) The area around in the proposed zoning amendment is developed in a residential fashion that would be FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 allowed under the new zoning and 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) There has not been a change in the area or adjacent area which may dictate that the property should be rezoned but the property is to be developed in a fashion which comports with other development in the area and existing zoning is probably out of tine with the existing uses. (e) That the property is proposed to be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) The proposed uses 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 and would 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 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 of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in .the best interest of City of Meridian. 8. It is further concluded that the comments, gMBROSE, FITZG ERALD d CROOKSTON Altomeye entl Couneelore P.O. Bo. aT/ Msrltlian, lONo aae,z Teleplrone BBBV18t recommendations and requirements of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, the Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Sewer Department will have to met and complied with. 9. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5 AMBROSE, FITZGERALO B CROOKSTON Attorneys antl Counselors P.O. Boz stT Marltllsn, ItlsKo e3s.s TelepMne BBS~s'81 r~ shall not have to be complied with as the requirements are not in line with the existing roadway conditions. FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 i 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 liS~~L~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED-~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys entl Counselors P.O. Box 127 MerlElen, Itlsso eaelz Telephone 888J191 The Meridian Planning and 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, the fire and life safety .codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED:/~% DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7 i • BEFORE "THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZOtJING COMMISSION BILL STUHR aND RUSS HUNEMILLER ANWEX!lTION 'AND ZONING r10RTHEAST CORNER CF CHERRY LANE AND TEiJ ~iILE ROAD 2890 AND 2810 CHERRY LAr!E MERI(iIAC!, IDAHO FINDINGS. OF FAC"[ AND CONCLUSIONS CF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on August 13, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.n~. on said date, at the Meridian City Hrll, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and 'she ;;ouncil having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the P,pplicant Russ Hunemiller appearing in person end through his engineer, Ron Johnson, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the followino: FINDINGS OF FACT i. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2i consecu~ive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 13, 1991, the first publication of which was 'Fifteen (151 days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 13, 1991, 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 pr;~perty inci~.~ded in th:~ application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 35 acres in size; it is in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane. 3. Tirat the property is presently zoned by the county AP- 1 (Agriculture) and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is zoned R-4, Residential. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant's Bill Stuhr and Russ Hunemiller are not the owners of record of the property but the owners of record, Joan Pries and Glen William Davidson, have requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is wl±hin 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 Plana 9. That the.4pplication requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision. 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - PAGE 2 11. That the property is in the CHERRY LANE Neighborhood as se*_ forth in Policy Ciagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that under Housing Cevelopment on page 25 and 2b of the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed a* g~eat2r densities than one dwellinn unit per acre and it is the policy that a density of greater than 1 dwelling unit, per 5 acres may not be exceeded rutside 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 to maintain agricultural pursuits. 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. 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 submitted comments and suc^ are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, i1-2-408 B. 1 as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 (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 predortrinantly 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 aun-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connec+.ion to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 17. That the Applicant's representative stated that P.pplicants intend to the all ditches included in the area to be annexed as part of the development of the subdivision. lII. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were give.^. and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the L~,:al 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 Ppplicant'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 fu;,ction. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PP,GE 4 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application contained in Section 50-222; Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plar, 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, Idaf;o 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 nog 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 de~!elopment of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property will be subject to Site Planning Review and the Subdivision and FiNOINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - PAGE 5 Development Ordinance. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained, however the interior accesses may have to be adjusted to meet the requirements of the Meridian Fire Department. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in the CHERRY LANE NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and zoning 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 be at a density of not greater than four (4) dwelling units per acre; that the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting ar,d other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly developme~rt and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the R-4 density is exceeded and no dwellings other than single family dwellings shall be allowed and this restriction shall be noted on the plat of the subdivision. 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 and Settlers FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 Irrigation Districts shall be met as well the requirements of the Bureau Reclamation and the City Engineer. 15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zonir.y or R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. FINUIN6S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - FA6E 7 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FAC'P AND CG:?CLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSINER HEPPER VOTED ~~~ COMMISSIONER RUUiV'1'REE VOT~,!`~? _ COMMISSIONER SHEARER vnmFn ~~~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON .(TIE BREAKER) VOTEHY DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION 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 that the Applicants be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that any and all tiling of ditches, canals arc waterways be first approved by Nampa-Meridian and Settlers Irrigation Districts and the Meridian City Engineer, and that the Applicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements. MOTION: APPROVED: ~~`~j DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8 Prepared by JACK C. RIDDLEMOSER, Attorney at Law, Meridian, ID BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION B. W., INC. ANNEXATION AND ZONING NORTH 1/4 SECTION 7, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., BOISE MERIDIAN BETWEEN EAST PINE STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO AM BROSE, FIT2G ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Allorneya entl Counselors P.O. Bov t2] Merltllan, Itlefto eaeoz Telsp~ona BB&~~81 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on August 13, 1991, 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 its engineer, Keith Jacobs, 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 fifteen days weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 13, 1991, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 13, 1991, 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 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD 6CROO KSTON Attorneys and Counselors P.O. Boa 12] MerlElan, IEafto 83812 TelePOOne BBB-u81 approximately 61 acres in size; it is located between East Pine Avenue and Fairview Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as Rural Transition Zone and R-8 and the requested Zone is R-8, Residential, some ground (C) Commercial, and some ground (L-0) Limited Office; that no specific legal descriptions were provided for the ground to be zoned as requested. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 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 owners of record have requested the annexation and consented to the Application and their requests are on file with the Application. 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 residences; that the applicant indicated that. the intended development of the property is for a single family R-8 subdivision with some commercial and limited office uses. 10. There were property owners in the immediate area that AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys enA Counselors P.O. Bo. dP] MerlClen, IOa~o B88d2 TelePftone 888-dd81 testified as to the Application; that one owner, Pete Petrutiu, voiced objection to the plat that was presented in conjunction with the annexation and zoning petition but did not evidence a specific objection to the annexation or the zoning; other property owners presented concerns about the access in and to the proposed subdivision, concerns for safety, seeing that irrigation water was properly transported through the proposed subdivision, seeing that their own property could be developed in the future. 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. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys end Counaeiora v.o. Bo. azT MerlElen, IOMo B3Ba1 Tebpftone BBBJSBt 15. That the Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, City Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation and City Fire Department submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Ada County Highway District may submit comments and they shall likewise be incorporated herein. 16. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1, as is the L-0, Limited Office District described in 11-2-408 B. 5, and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant did not set forth the exact commercial designation requested and therefor no finding is made as to that zone. 17. That the Applicant's representative stated that Applicant intend to the all ditches included in the area to be annexed as part of the development of the subdivision and limited office and commercial property; that the Application indicates that, other than the areas to be zoned limited office and some type of commercial, the development will be limited to single family dwellings. 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD B CROOKSTON Allomeye anE r.OUnll10r6 P.O. Boa ~Y] MsriCi~n, IEMo 8382 TsIaDSOne BB&~.et 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, 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, 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 ~ • • le islative function the Cit has authorit to place conditions 9 y Y upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements; that the Applicant wilt 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 proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained, however the interior accesses may have to be adjusted to meet the requirements of the Meridian Fire Department and other concerns about access. 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 it is located closer to the Old Town Area than the Industrial Review Area and the proposal is in large part similar to the development of the Old Town area 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 FATZG ERALD Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that 6CROONSTON Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned as requested; that Allorneys and Counselors the development of the property shall be limited to single family R.o. Floa.]l MarlClon, IENo 83862 Telephone BBB~M81 ii ~,, • • dwellings even though the residential portion will be actually zoned R-8, which does allow duplexes; that the conditions should be 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 single family residence restriction is not strictly adhered to and no dwellings other than single family dwellings shall be allowed and this restriction shall be noted on the plat of the subdivision; additionally the Applicant shall be required to submit to the City Council adequate legal descriptions of the property to be zoned in different fashions. 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 and Settlers Irrigation Districts shall be met as well the requirements of the Bureau Reclamation and the City Engineer. 15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-8, Residential, with some property zoned limited office and commercial would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AMRROSE, FITZO ERALO 6CROOKSTON The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and ,,,,pra,Y,,,,tl approves these Findings of fact and Conclusions. Counaebra P.O. Box ~2l Meridian, Itleho 8382 Telap~one 88&u81 •. 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 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 that the Applicant be specifically required to submit accurate legal descriptions for the land to zoned in various fashions and to the 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 no dwellings shall be constructed other than single family dwellings. MOTION: APPROVED: r DISAPPROVED: J AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys antl Counselors P.O. Box t2] Merltlian,ItlaNo BsBaz TeISPNOne BBBNet FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8