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