Loading...
1991 01-08 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 8, 1991 I ITEM MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1990: (APPROVED) 1: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS ~` 2: (APPROVED) 2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GEMTONE, INC. FOR PUD GENERAL: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 8, 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: Moe Alidjani, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Ted Hepper: Others Present: Harry Jensen, Glen Scota, Don Hubble, Darrell & Shannon Spencer, George Wilhelm, Chuck Fuller, Thomas T. Wright, Susan Lacy, Wayne Crookston, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 11, 1990: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held December 11, 1990 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS #2: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to come forward and testify or a representative for this request? Don Hubble, 3952 Daisy Way, was sworn in by Chairman Johnson: Hubble: Meridian Greens #2 is an extension of the existing Meridian Greens unit #1 thats out there. The entire project will consist of 160 acres, this second phase will be thirty to forty of that. Presented a vicinity map to Commission. This second phase would consist of 84 lots, the density on that would be just slightly over two lots to the acre. Our traffic flow would connect to the existing Kingsford Drive and S.E. 5th Way and we'd access out onto Overland. The lots are large they are averaging between 90 to 100 ft. wide and they are over a hundred feet deep. Basically we have read the staff report prepared by Gary Smith regarding water, sewer and misc. comments. The only comments we have to make would be under water, Item #2 the comment is - that provisions need to be made at this time for a new well site, this is not only necessary from a flow & pressure requirement but also because ono= as~aly line serves this area and it crosses under I-84. I met with Gary earlier today. We've done a little bit of work on flows and pressure from the existing water supply and based on what we've got it looks like our worse case senerio would be a fire hydrant at the far S.E. corner of the project, which happens to be the highest in elevation and the farthastfrom the source_ At that point with both phases we'd have around 175 lots developed and we could provide the water for those lots and a fire flow of a thousand gallons a minute at that most remote point, the fire stream would be a thousand gallons a minute at 25 psi. We haven't had a chance to talk with the Fire Department to find out what the pressure requirements are for that. I think we might have adequate flow but will have to double check with the fire department. The Developers of this realize the need for a well and are willing to work with the City to come up with a well site and have the City add another well to the system. So at a minimum tonight I would request maybe this Commission appoint a committee or someone to work with us to find out just where to locate that well. Johnson: We only have one source of water out there and this is a big concern. We do need some sort of a back up system out there. Hubble: The only other comments on this would be under miscellaneous. #1 - Says that the street light locations need to be shown, apparently the Ordinance requires the developer to submit a request of variance to use yard light rather than street MERIDIAN P & Z JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE #2 lights. Phase I has been done under individual yard lights and we would like to continue the second phase in a similar fashion. Clerk Niemann: I don't think your going to get the variance approved Don, because I think they are going to make you put street lights at the major intersections now. Hubble: The last condition here that we'd like to point out is #2 - Ingress & Egress for the subdivision should be encouraged via S.E. 5th Way by paving that portion presently having a gravel surface. We did meet with the Staff of ACHD yesterday regarding this project and discussed access points and their requirements. Their staff decision was that they don't believe that S.E. 5th would need to be paved at this time to meet their standards. The request would be at this time to leave it as it is as a gravel surface as an emergency access and our primary access would be out S.E. 3rd Way, we'd have a secondary access we are proposing to do through to the South and connect to Mesa Way. It looks like it would be the Developers responsibility to make the improvements from the southerly .boundary of this project to the existing Mesa Way. However, the Highway District wants to review that and see if there would be an adverse impact to the Kachina Estates because of the traffic. So we request your consideration to waive the requirement to pave at this time. Johnson: What's the distance from the end of your subdivision to the Culdesac on Mesa Way now? Hubble: Roughly 200 feet. That's all I had to present, I would be happy to answer any questions if I could. Alidjani: The portion of the S.E. 5th that your talking about, your asking for a variation not to be having it black-topped and stay with the gravel, is it the portion that is already in gravel. and comes out toward the Caterpillar Company? Hubble: Yes. Alidjani: And there is no building around it, no houses or anything? Hubble: No. Shearer: I'm still a little mixed up on Mesa Way. Is the developer going to connect this and is ACHD pushing for that at this time? Hubble: ACHD hasn't decided whether they would like that or not. If ACRD won't participate in that paving then the developer is going to do that. Rountree: Is S.E. 5th a Public Right of Way? Hubble: That portion outside the subdivision, you know I'm not sure I think that might just be an easement right now. Rountree: What's the width? Hubble: I'm pretty sure that's 50 feet, might even be 60 feet. Rountree: You indicated that the developer is willing to at least sit with the City and try and resolve the situation with the water, what percentage participation is the developer considering at this point and time, if any. MERIDIAN P & Z JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE #3 Hubble: It hasn't been discussed enough to know really what the cost of the well is, and what they are willing to participate withr other than they realize the value of having an additional well for this project. The subjects that have been discussed is that the last couple of wells that the city has done have been on donated property and the City has paid for the improvements, drilling the wells and putting in the pumps and so forth. Hepper: Is this going to be done in phases, like the first unit was? Hubble: Yes, construction phases. This probably would be done in roughly three phases. It would be 30 lots each. Hepper: The last phase would be the farthest south or would that be the along with E. Kingsford, would that be the first or last phase? Hubble: We haven't discussed phases enough to know which way to go. One option would be to construct the entire length of that the extension of Kingsford Way which would make that tie. The other option would be to build 30 lots in the northwesterly portion which would stop Kingsford Way down there 200 or 300 feet. Hepper: If ACHD decided that they wanted that connected up to Mesa Way there, if that would be something that wouldbe quite a ways in the future or would that be something that would be done right away. Hubble: Horsed on their Standards it doesn't look like we would have to do that to comply with their requirements. They 've got new standards out now that a residential street can handle 100 lots and a collector street can handle approximately 200 lots, and right now SE 3rd Way has been constructed to the Collector Standards. So according to their standards that would handle 200 lots. Hepper: Can a Collector Street have houses facing onto the street? Hubble: There true collector they require on-site turn arounds for the collector streets rather than have direct lot access. Hepper: So it wouldn't be considered a true collector street. Hubble: No it's not. S.E. 5th is also the portion that has been constructed to collector street standards as well as far as width and .right of way. Johnson: Anyone else from the Public that would like to come forward and address the Commission on this application? Please come forward and be sworn. Bert Lafferty, 2555 Mesa Way, was sworn by the attorney. Lafferty: My only concern, I understand there is an easement coming on through into Mesa Way and obviously Ada County hasn't shown up and dictated what their plans are. There is a few of these people that is familiar with this subdivision, it's a five acre tract development, the road constructed as it was, there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk. I don't want to hold up this mans development but I think something needs MERIDIAN P & Z JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE #4 to be kept in consideration there as far as the impact to that subdivision that we are in. I understand they need more egress also, but its easy to figure out that anybody from that end of the subdivision is going to come out that way. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing no response I will close the Public Hearing. Any Discussion. Rountree: I'm a little concerned that granted S.E. 5th is a dedicated easement but it is not a dedicated public right of way for transportation facility. It seems to me that that ought to beset up as a public right of way for future improvement. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to recommend approval of this preliminary plat with the following conditions: A steady committee be put together including at a minimum the City Engineer and the developer to resolve the well issue, and water pressure issue for fire, also that the Developer adhere to the comments of ACHD once they are received,. that ACHD, the developer and the City resolve the issue of the interconnector that connect with Mesa Way, and that there be resolution of the Public Access on the extension of S.E. 5th from the development to Overland Road. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GEMTONE, INC. FOR PUD GENERAL: Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there a representative here? Thomas Wright, 1412 W. Idaho, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Wright: I'm both a part owner of this project and in turn the marketing representative. We have applied to the City of Meridian for a Conditional Use Permit under a Planned Unit Development - General of as you are aware the TreasureValley Business Center. They asked for and received a Industrial Light Zoning for the entire property. There was a time when this City did issue the eastern portion of this property a temporary retail zone for a potential regional shopping center. That zoning has since expired so the entire 300 acres is zoned as Light Industrial. Presented a photo and explained to the Commission. (TAPE ON FILE) Rountree: I have a plat of Phase I here could you outline that on your drawing. Wright: There is roughly 160 acres on both sides of Eagle Road, and about half of that west side was platted. Rountree: =So there wouldn't be any change in the access points. Wright: No, no changes. The property that we are trying to market are the platted lots. We have a major company that has asked for 100 acres. Rountree: You show two accesses onto Eagle Road, do you have a distance between those? Wright: They are approximately 600+ Ft., we have those approved. Rountree: One condition of that PUD-General is the 10~ open space, can you show that in the concept, what that's going to include. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE #5 Wright: No. Presented an aerial picture taken in spring of 1990. Explained. We haven't addressed the 10~ space specifically. Rountree: My question is, what would you consider those kinds of uses? Crookston: What are the plans for access to those lots that are in that corner on Fairview and Eagle? What about the access off the major, I mean onto these smaller lots. Wright: Showed Attorney where accesses are intended to be and these have been approved. Crookston: Are you talking about even re-doing some of this for interior roads coming off of Jewell Street. Wright: No. Crookston: What is your plan for coming to the City again when you have a business lined out thats ready to go, they know the property they want what is your thinking as to how that's going to be approached as far as additional improvements such as if the City required design review and things of that nature. Wright: Just that now the Conditional Use Permit that we anticipate that we need would be eliminated as a step but we still have to come in for Design Review and obviously a Building Permit. Then any improvements that that user would require would also come back in. Johnson: Is there anyone else from the Public who would like to come forward? Harry Jensen 2075 E. Fairview, Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Jensen: I was in on the original when UP wanted to develop that particular piece of property over there in Phase I, we did not object to any of it thatthey did with the exception of when they wanted to put in the spur line along the west side. When they were doing Phase I I requested a right of way to my property and at that time Mr. Lloyd Howell stated to the Board here it was alright if we took that up in Phase 2 and being a sucker a said yes that was fine, and they didn't put it down in the minutes and consequently Phase 2 never come about and now I own the property on the west side of Phase I. Showed Commission where abouts the property is located. Previously we have brought our equipment down through an existing road that came down through that property from Eagle Road, well when UP took over and rebuilt that whole area, they constructed a pipe line which was to our advantage, and bring it around to the edge so we didn't have to come all that way and service that ditch, and it made it better for us for irrigation, but it did not give me access to the back piece of property. The only thing I am requesting of Mr. Wright or this group is to see somehow if we can work out a way to get an access to that back 15 acres. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 8, 1991 PAGE #6 Alidjani: Wouldn't that southeast corner of that property your saying a portion of it is not under their control and there is a green house sitting there that somebody else owns that. Jensen: Yes. Mine goes to a drainage ditch which is a ditch that can be covered up in the future. The purpose of that drainage ditch was for the farms in that area which included the farms that ,the different properties had, mine and the neighbors and so on for the water to drain off the land and go down. It's all developed, there is no use for a drainage ditch. Clerk Niemann: Don't you have access off Fairview? Jensen: I have access, my home is off Fairview. If I took fifty feet off of that property for a right of way, it would put the road within about 25 ft. from my house. Also for fire purposes I think they would want a second access to that property. The only thing I'm requesting this Board and Mr. Wright to do is see if we can work our something as a right of way for that property so it won't be an island. Alidjani: Didn't you just say that if you couldn't make a deal with them you do have a way to put access to your own property? Jensen: I own my house and four acres up front on Fairview. If you took a fifty foot right of way all the way down my property - Alidjani: How many feet would that be from your four and the other fifteen acres? Jensen: The length of that road is I think 800 ft.. The whole problem is that canal . Johnson: You indicated you had access to this property previous to the development is that included on a deed or some kind of a document somewhere? Jensen: Explained to Commission. (TAPE ON FILE) They didn't make the curb cut or right of way like they said they were going to. Johnson: The cold hard facts of it might be that you will have to eventually work something out with the owners of the, property. It may be something that we can not address right now, because we are really talking about something that's outside of what we are considering tonight. Anyone else from the Public that would like to testify? Nick Nichols, 5107 Overland, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Nichols: I represent (BME) Business .Management Enterprises, Inc.. We hold an option of the property owned by Mr. Harry Jensen. We took that option and began attempts to develop that land based on the premise that there was a old time agreement probably with Union Pacific for an entry from that land into the fourteen acres addressed by Mr. Jensen. We have plats ready for Meridian and we have been in contact with Ada. Planning & Zoning in preliminary to this Committee and have been advised that it is necessary to have a second entrance into that area of land. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? Hearing no response I will close the Public Hearing. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 9, 1991 PAGE #7 The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to have the Attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: No Recommendation made to the Council at this time. Johnson: We do have a Special Meeting set up for January 22nd. One other item, you got my letter regarding the possibility of changing our Ordinances to allow for amendment to a Conditional Use Permit. Discussion. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer .to adjourn at 8:45 P.M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: APPROVED: JIM ~7 HN ONr CHAIRMAN ATTEST: pc: Mayor & Council P & Z, Atty, Eng., Bldg., Police, Valley News, Statesman, ACRD, NMID, CDH, School District, Ward, Stuart, Gass, Mail (2) File (2) BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GEMTONE, INC. FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND EAGLE ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT--GENERAL The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 8, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through Tom Wright, 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 of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of public hearing on the Conditional Use AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomays aM GDUI1NIWa P.O. BOx 1Y7 MeriGian, 108ho 838!2 Telaplrona BBB-N8/ Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 8, 1991, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 8, 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 Petitioner, and is described in the application, which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the property is in the southeast and the southwest quadrants of the intersection of the Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road; Petitioners propose to develop the property in mixed use fashion containing both Commercial and Light Industrial uses as a planned unit development-general. 3. That the property is located in what is presently designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as the Eastern Industrial Review Area; the Industrial Review Areas are generally addressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan at Page 15 and read as follows: INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREAS: The Industrial Review Areas are an essen is a ement of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Special uses of land must be recognized as having special needs and diverse impacts. Designating certain areas for business uses, as a method of guiding business expansion, is an appropriate approach to Meridian's economic future and provides for the essential difference between the City's business land market and the residential land market. The Comprehensive Plan intends to prepare for Meridian's business and employment future by reserving land for industrial, retail, commercial and office uses and so removing them from the categories of land on which residential development can be proposed. In all review areas, detailed economic analysis is essential, so that the specifics of industrial plans, designs and development will be known. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON ~tlomeys ~n0 Counselors P.O. BOa IZ7 MsrlClur, IUMo S3B~Y TelapNOns BBBJa61 Each Industrial Review Area is recognized as possessing unique physical and locational characteristics, both natural and man-made, which make it a desireable business environment. These characteristics are relatively level topography, potentially good access to rail and freeway facilities, and being relatively free from environmental hazards. A specific set of policies has been prepared for the development of each of the Review Areas and is discussed in a later section of the plan document. 4. That the specific Eastern Industrial Review Area is (discussed at Page 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and reads as (follows: EASTERN INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA/POLICIES: 1. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote the development of an interchange (egress and ingress) at the intersection of Eagle Road and Interstate I-84 by the Idaho Department of Transportation. (This policy was recently deleted from the Plan since the interchange has been constructed.) 2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote the development of an overpass, if an interchange is not feasible, at the intersection of Locust Grove and I-84 by the Idaho Department of Transportation. 3. The character, site improvements and type of industrial developments should be harmonized with the residential area to the south (on the upper bench), the contiguous residential area to the east and north. 4. The utilization of the linear open space corridor of Five Mile Creek, which passes through the Eastern Industrial Review Area, should be maintained as natural resource for both aesthetic and environmental reasons. 5. That the land is presently zoned I-L, Light Industrial. 6. That a planned general development is defined as (follows: Planned General Development (PD-G) - A development not otherwise ~stinguishe un er Tanned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or which in the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complementary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses. AM BROSE, F1T2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys entl Counseloro P.O. Box /tl Merltllen, ItleNo B381Y rmeenone eBBUei 7. That the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409 presently contains a category for general or industrial planned snit developments; that the schedule allows a planned unit levelopment-general as a conditional use in the I-L; that a M anned Unit Development - Industrial is an allowed use in the [-L zone without a conditional use permit. 8. That the property to the west is vacant ground with :ome residential, farm and commercial uses; the property to the past is vacant property and farm ground with a few residences; :he property to the south is farm ground and Light Industrial; :he property to the north is farm ground and residences. 9. That proper notice has been given as required by law ind all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission lave been given and followed. 10. That part of the property has been platted and is presently developed with roads, curb and gutter and sidewalks in some areas; there is one existing business in the area which is ~ freight and trucking depot; that the other portion of the subject property has not been platted or developed; that the portion which has been platted has sewer and water lines installed. 11. That the Applicant has not submitted a petition signed ~y at least 75% of the people owning property within 300 feet of :he property indicating their approval of the use of the property as requested by Applicant as such is not required under the conditional use requirement in the I-L zone. 12. That the City of Meridian does have control guidelines AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B OROOKSTON Attorneys and CouneNOra P.O. Boz /Z7 MerIU4n, IaaKo &b/R Tsleptwne BBBA/81 and requirements for planned developments in 11-9-607 and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Tanning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have le en met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property lithin 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's iroperty; 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant onditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant 0 11-2-418 of the Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City .f Meridian, Idaho; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place onditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the roperty pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2- 18(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of leridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Complied irdinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards nder which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City ouncil shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; .hat upon a review of those requirements and a review of the acts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and oning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use would, in fact, constitute and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinances. AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD BCROOKSTON Attomays ane CounselOn P.O. Box l2i MMEIen, IEMo 83812 TelsplgM BB&e/81 b. The proposed possible uses apparently would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive PTan as amended, but the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The proposed possible uses apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the proposed possible uses should not be hazardous nor should they be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. Sewer and water service are installed in some of the area. f. The possible proposed uses would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the possible proposed uses would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed possible uses would apparently not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. Sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use must be provided. i. The development and probable uses will likely not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That all development in the area shall be controlled and guided by design review, and shall be guided and controlled under 11-9-607, Planned Development, and shall meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian, 6. That the application and proposed possible uses are in ~ornpliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and with the granting of the Conditional Use, if done so, the application and proposed possible uses and development would be in compliance vith the Zoning Ordinance. AM BROSE, 7, That the granting of this application would be in the FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON pest interest of the City of Meridian, Atlomeya ere Counselor P.O. Box a27 Merielen, lento 83812 Telepiro~ro 886//81 :_ ii • • 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 Nepper Commissioner Rountree Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Alidjani Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker} DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION ...__ Voted Votedtyd~~- Voted C .lam V o t e d filf~--- Voted The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON Attomaya aM GOUna6lan P.O. Boa IZT Msrlolan, MNo 83642 TalaplwM 8864x81 recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the Council approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property describ/e~~d/ in the applicatiJon under YYLtf/`/ ~ ~ ~ -~J- tn~ FN ~j~L~ the conditions contained herein,,specifically 11-9-507 of the ~. Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that any Conditional Use granted by conditioned on compliance with the conditions herein and that the Conditional Use be revoked for failure to comply with the cyondition(1s. }1, ~~i>- ~)iN`1}t'-, ~f~yNl ~?~-? file 1'~C'J.. ~~iJ /0'`~ -'l> ~. )'~c-~M^.i ~Ad l~~~ MOTION : ,l\`t~d---=tyjq. j APPROVED ~~ ~ DISAPPROVED: ~~