The URL can be used to link to this page

1994 02-08 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 11, 1994: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 31, 1994: (APPROVED) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: TABLED AT JANUARY 11, 1994 MEETING: (APPROVED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS:(APPROVED) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISSON NO. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PARTNERSHIP AD NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY GLENN AND MILLIE NYBORG:(APPROVED) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:(APPROVED) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY RONALD HENRY (REVISION-:(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE #5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS:(TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1994) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LANDING #7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:(APPROVED) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NAVARRO SUBDIVISION BY FOUR T'S INC. AND KEITH LOVELESS:IAPPROVED) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR SUMMERFILED SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING:(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) ~IDIAN PLANNING & ZONING I$SIDN AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~~r~VeCG MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 11, 1994: d~pP~ed/ MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 31, 1994: 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND HIRE SCI~S COE: TABLED AT JANUARY 11, 1994 MEETING: LAN n,~ ~~ dpPrav~ ~/C { e/L ~ecoa,..~.,.eL -~ c% ~ appi-av,e 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY E WESTPARK COM ANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: copper-~- pie-~L~t u~ophave- G/~ ~ e?/L ~-ecP.ti..,.~..-~,C ~ c~c ~ af'P.-avc. 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PARTNERSHIP AD RUBBLE ENGINEERING : appr~~ .owe - f ant approve C/G ~ C/G ~-ecmww-+.e..~ ~a elC ~ ~~p~ve._ 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT G~20UP_AND JUB ENGINEERS. 4Ppr~i^e-ire /~LaC' u~oprov~ ~~F ~ C'~~ vece..,~.,.~d ~ C~c ~ ~yp.~~e, 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY ROBERT WHITMIRE: ~`p/F)/atie ~~~ C L iCco~nv..e~+-~G ~fri C~~ {~ ~-/°/orav2. 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY GLENN AND MILLIE NYBORG: approve. F~P ~C~G hecm~me+~~-G f+~ c/C ~° cryprove, 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: ~~ s/vie ~~F ~ C/~ ~~,„...-~.,~c.. t~ c/e ~ a~prbrc 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY RONALD HENRY (REVISION): Gi~J a~to~,..e ~ Pre~p~wC F~P ~ C~G 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ~EQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE #5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: ~si~/ecfi 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LANDING #7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY• reta/nrnend r cepprovcof Yv ClC' lvi~'hCm.dil~bn,s 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NAVARRO SUBDIVISION BY FOUR T'S INC. AND KEITH LOVELESS: raeornme.+d- ~ov kopravae fir, C/G Writ G'oaa'i~lbx.r 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR SUMMERFILED SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: City a tt`o~n ay prepav~ FfF ~ C~L /3. GlJ4~ne Foy-re~ /¢. /ltut~~ - f u,:~.e Fab- 22 Tr~iQ.,~ e 6=~0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING FEBRUARY 8 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Ronald Henry, David Collins, Thomas, Geile, Ted Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Keith Loveless, Rich Allison, Beverly Donahue, Jim Merkle, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 11, 1994: Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any additions, corrections or deletions? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, on page 11, about a quarter of the page down, my comment should read, "the developer is here tonight" and further on in that sentence, "maybe we could ask" insert ask and insert here in the previous part of that sentence. On page 50, top of the page, second line in my comment, it should be "owners to care for" instead of care. Johnson: Care for? Any other corrections? Did you read anybody's comments beside your own? Rountree: Most of them. Johnson: Entertain a motion. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we approve the minutes from January 11. Shearer: I second Johnson: We have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected for the meeting of January 11, 1994, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 31, 1994 Johnson: Are there any additions, corrections, or deletions to these minutes? Is there a motion? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the special meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 2 held January 31, 1994. Shearer: I second it Johnson: Its been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as written for January 31, 1994, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: TABLED AT JANUARY 11, 1994 MEETING: Johnson: Is there any discussion or corrections or questions regarding the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by the City Attorney? Rountree: On page 6, last sentence of that page should read the "the parcel to be used" insert the word "be", page 6. Johnson: Under which item? Rountree: That would have been item #8, its last one on page 6. Johnson: Any other changes or discussion? Alidjani: Page 9, I believe this should be approved (inaudible). Crookston: That is correct. Alidjani: Page 9, approve of Findings Johnson: Page 9 change the work denies to approves. If there is no further discussion I will entertain a motion on these Findings of Facts. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact with the 2 corrections noted, this is a roll call vote. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 3 ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation to pass onto the City. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to City Council of the City of Meridian that the rezone application be approved as modified above. It is further recommended that if the applicants do not agree with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the application be denied. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City with conditions so stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY THE WEST PARK COMPANY AND J.J. HOWARD ENGINEERS: Johnson: Any discussion or corrections regarding these Findings of Fact? Alidjani: I have one typing error on page 12, item 19, "net" should be "not" Johnson: That is correct, we've had that error in there before Wayne. Alidjani: I've found it in three other places. Crookston: That is a different language, it is still not. Its tennis language. Johnson: I thought it was Russian. Any other corrections, discussion? Hepper: Yes, I've got a question Mr. Chairman, on page 12, it says the minimum house size should be 1500 square feet and be constructed at a value of not less than 5120,000 to 5160,000. I think if you have a value of not less than you'd want to use the lower figure, valued not less than 5120,000. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 4 Johnson: I would agree with that, because you are putting a restriction on the upper scale which is something we wouldn't concern ourselves with. So it is your suggestion to eliminate to and $165,000. Is there anything else? Entertain a motion on these Findings of Fact. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as amended this evening. Alidjani: I second it Johnson: Its been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions with the corrections noted, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated for the above property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Shearer: I second it. Johnson: Its moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the Preliminary plat. Alidjani: I second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the Preliminary plat, all in favor? Opposed? i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 5 MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY LAKE JENNINGS VISTA PARTNERSHIP AND NUBBLE EINGINEERING: Johnson: Any discussion or corrections regarding these Findings of Fact as prepared by our City Attorney? Alidjani: I have a couple items Mr. Chairman, on page 11, item 14 on the bottom of the page, the pound sign. Johnson: Delete the pound sign on page 11, okay. Alidjani: Also, on page 12, item 19, same item, "net" should be "not". Johnson: Anybody have anything else on these Findings of Facts? Is there a motion? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the corrections noted. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: A recommendation to the City of Meridian. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve this annexation and zoning as stated above 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 and the owners specifically be required to the all the ditches, canals, waterways as a condition of annexation with the exception of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 6 Nine Mile Drain which must comply with the Ada County Pathway Plan and that the application meet all the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements entering into the required development agreement and that the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to pass onto the City Council the recommendation written, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass a recommendation onto the City Council to approve the Preliminary plat. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion to recommend to the City approval of Preliminary plat for Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 2, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND JUB ENGINEERS: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these Findings of Fact? I have 1 item on page 13, same thing that Moe has, item 19 where the "net" is "not". Alidjani: (Inaudible) Hepper: I don't think you want to place a limit on the upper end. Johnson: Would you Tike to suggest we change that? Shearer: Yes Johnson: By eliminating "and" and 5125,000, also, take the between out since it is between nothing. Any other corrections, editorial or otherwise? Is there a motion for Findings of Fact for this request? • Meridian Planning & Zoning Febmary 8, 1994 Page 7 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planing & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this request Elk Run Subdivision No. 2, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Hepper: yea MOTION CARRIED: All yea Johnson: Is there a decision or a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated for the above property as described in the application with conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Are you going to read the rest of it or are you going to stop there? Rountree: I'll stop there. Johnson: Its moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which we have done and to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we also pass onto the City Council a favorable recommendation for the approval of the Preliminary plat. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary plat for Elk Run Subdivision No. 2, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 8 ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY ROBERT AND FRAN WHITMIRE: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the Findings of Facts as prepared by our City Attorney? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, f move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, sewer department requirements, Nampa/Meridian Irrigation requirements, fire and life safety codes, Uniform building code and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian and that the applicant meet the 35 foot landscape and setback required under the Comprehensive Plan. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND GONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY GLENN AND MILLIE NYBORG: Johnson: Any corrections or discussion regarding these Findings of Fact? Rountree: Page 6, item J, second line insert the word "not" between would and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 9 cause. Johnson: Right, I think that is correct is that not right Wayne? Crookston: That is correct, Charlie and I talked about it already. Johnson: Any other corrections? Rountree: Mr Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as corrected here this evening. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for rezone request by Glenn and Millie Nyborg, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Alidjani: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the rezone of the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a #avorable recommendation to the City Council, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I have a few minor corrections, does anybody have any or do you want me to start here? Alidjani: Go ahead and start. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1444 Page 10 Johnson: Page 3, bottom of the page under item 8, I believe the second sentence from the bottom, it probably should be that instead of the in front of Avest, maybe not. Crookston: What are you calling out Jim? Johnson: Item 8, second line from the bottom of the page on page 3, just before Avest. Crookston: That is correct, it should be that. Johnson: Another correction of page 4, I don't know if it is a correction I just had a question, is 400 feet correct? Second line top of the page. Crookston: I think that is what they represented. Johnson: Page 24, #18 wasn't clear to me is it clear to you? Crookston: Instead of "a" it should be "as". Johnson: Page 20, something minor there, #11 bottom of the page, 4th line down "that the duty of "probably should be a "the" in front of Commission, Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: I think that is all I've got. Anybody have anything else, any discussion on any of these? I'll entertain a motion. Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Facts and Conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions with the corrections so noted, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani: Yea, Shearer: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Hepper: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: I move the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 11 City Council that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law including that the applicant agree that the development of the property shall be done as Commercial Planned Development and that the applicant enter into a development agreement as outlined in the Conclusions of Law prior to the development of the property under the Commercial Planning use provisions and enter into a proposed development agreement. It is recommended that the property not be annexed. Alidjani: Second Crookston: 1 think that should be not, that needs to be revised somewhat. Johnson: Do you want to make a stab at it now? Shearer: Let's see, I just skipped over it too fast. Johnson: I think it reads okay Shearer: Yes, its alright, if its not agreeable then they deny the annexation. Johnson: I'm sorry did we get a second? Alidjani: I second it, do you have a problem with that Wayne? Crookston: I think maybe to correct it would just need a move to have the recommendation in the Findings of Fact approved, if that was your intention. Johnson: I'm unclear where we stand, would you like to do something with you initial motion? Shearer: Okay, if the applicant is not agreeable with the requirements of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that we recommend that it be denied. Johnson: Not be annexed. Alidjani; Second Johnson: Okay, we have a second to that motion for the recommendation to the City Council, all in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MERIDIAN MEADOWS BY RONALD HENRY (REVISION): Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is the applicant or someone representing the applicant here and would like to address the Commission please do so at this time, you will need to be sworn. Ronald L. Henry, 6301 Charleston Place, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Henry: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, this request is for approval of annexation and rezoning and preliminary plat for Meridian Meadows subdivision. The location of the proposed subdivision is a quarter mile south of the intersection of Meridian and Overland, its east of Meridian Road and south of a new street East East Calderwood. Let me just make a comment about the name Meridian Meadows, we received a word of denial of the name so we kind of restructured to Fawcett's Meadows and I'm going to submit that as the new name. The proposed subdivision is comprised of 39 lots for single family homes on the 4.6 acres. The density is 2.7 Tots per acre, we are requesting a R-4 zoning with a minimum of 8,000 square feet per lot, the largest building will be 17, 675. There are 2 existing homes on the property, both of which will be integrated into the plan in the subdivision. I have reviewed all the comments back from the various agencies and I think I can accept most of the recommendations. There is just a couple questions that I have which I just wanted to pose. 1) Has there been a policy decision on the 12 inch water line down the east side of Meridian road south of East Calderwood? 2) What is the City's position on lot 8, Block 1 on the east side of Ten Mile Creek, 1 propose that it be donated to the City, however if the City does not want, I've been offered or at least I will offer it to Running Brook Estates, because it is really more contiguous to their development rather than ours. Johnson: WeII, I would certainly recommend that you make that offer to the City, when you reach the City Council level it would probably be resolved at that point. With respect to his question, Bruce is there an answer to that yet. Freckleton: I don't know Johnson: Bruce is representing our Engineering Department and doesn't have an answer for you yet on the pipe. Henry: On our Preliminary plat we showed the pipe running along the east side of Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 13 Meridian. Johnson: Did you have an opportunity to talk to Bruce about his recommendation? Henry: No I didn't. Freckleton: That was one of Gary's (inaudible) Johnson: The one with the lot being denied access? Freckleton: No Johnson: No, not that, the one you had in here about, its not access, its the existing domestic water and sewer services Lot 2 and 5, Block 5, the wells must be terminated with this annexation, so did you talk to him about that? Henry: I didn't talk to him, but this is a new plat it has changed. Those 2 lots now will be serviced from the south, Lombardy Street. We've made some changes to resolve the concerns that were raised the first time around. Johnson: Is that all you had for us? Any questions of Mr. Henry? This is a public hearing, is there someone else that would like to address the Commission on this application, now is the time. Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We need Findings of Fact on this gentleman. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this project. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the request for annexation and zoning for Meridian Meadows, soon to change its name, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE #5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, if there is someone representing the • • Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 74 applicant or the applicant that would like to address the Commission please do so now. You need to be sworn. David Collins, 3350 Americana Terrace, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Collins: The project is a 20 acre parcel located directly south of the existing development known as Haven Cove on Cherry Lane west of Meridian. The parcel is preliminarily laid out with 73 units at 3.75 units per acre. I have gone over this plan with Ada County Highway district and there will be a minor modification, they are requesting extension of a road to the east out of the project. After meeting with Larry Sale and the rest of the staff down there including the Traffic Department, it was determined to extend Warrior Street on the south of the project to the east to the adjoining parcel. This hopefully will take care of the duel access problems that might be of concern to the City of Meridian. Also, the water system will be taken from the 10 inch line out of Haven Cove Subdivision as its built today and extended down through and liked in to Pine Street completing some networking on the water lines in the City of Meridian. The extension of the road to the north will continue with the development of the parcel to the west of us which is owned by Tom Eddy, there is a connection from the existing Haven Cove preliminary into Mr. Eddy's parcel. The Highway District insisted this be connected into our project to provide an indirect but definite flow through from Pine Street to West Cherry Lane, which is a reversal of the policy that they indicated to me when we did the original preliminary plat for Haven Cove, they wanted no communication between Pine and Cherry, but they have had a change in staffing for whatever reason. That is all I have. Johnson; Any questions of David? Hepper: I've got a couple, what do you plan to do on berming and landscaping on the entrance? Collins: On the entrance way the right of way requirement is 66 feet and there is currently 50, we will probably provide a berm comparable to what is along Cherry Lane, 7-8 feet wide, rising slightly and then fenced on top, pretty low key development along there. Hepper: Similar to what is on Cherry Lane. And that will have sidewalks, curb and gutter? Collins: I don't know if we will bond for them at this time, that is Highway district whether we construct them at the present time or whether we throw the money in Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 15 the coffers and maybe they have a major project coming up that is going to tie in and they will do it themselves, that I haven't determined yet. Hepper: That is all I have. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions for Mr. Collins? Rountree: Just to qualify what you said about access through or to the adjacent properties, Warrior Street would be extended to the east through what appears to be Lot 4, block 1. Collins: Yea, on the alignment of Warrior Street it will go to the east, that is correct. Rountree: And what was the connection to come off of rutledge Avenue to the north through the culdesac that is shown there now would access that property to the east. Collins: No, the connection to the north would be the extension of Morris Street to the west of Mr. Eddy's parcel and then there is a stub from Haven Cove it will be phase 4 when we get it done, that is coming south into Mr. Eddy`s property about 100 feet into his property. Rountree: That is North Stucker Avenue? Collins: Yes, I think so, there area lot of names on those streets. What the Highway District wants was a very circuitous route to discourage flow through from the High School through to Cherry Lane when school gets out. Johnson; Any other questions? Rountree: That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Collins, this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? The gentleman standing, you need to be sworn sit. Aloys Schlekeway, 2090 West Pine, was sworn by the Attorney. Johnson: We have your letter in our packet sir. Schlekeway: 1 was just concerned because I was cut out of access from Haven Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 16 Cove No. 2 and the through street was changed to a culdesac on Rutledge Avenue and I am getting pushed back into a corner back there and Warrior Street is quite a ways out front from my property too so I'm kind of tied back into a whole back there and I'm concerned. I'm not real happy with Warrior Street, I'd just assumed it was Mora the one out front, 1 would just assume to see that street go through to the east more than any of them. The County didn't want any connection there so they denied me access on rutledge Avenue but now they are giving access just a little ways on the road too so it didn't seem to fair to me. That is it. Johnson: I appreciate your comments we have letter, we do not have according to my packet any comments from our City Engineer or ACRD so we have a recommendation from our Planning Director that we take whatever testimony tonight but we table some action because those comments are missing and they are vital to this particular project. Schlekeway: Right, I was never told that was changed from a through street to a culdesac and 1 never had a bit of say in it. Shearer: tf I understood what Dave just said they have changed their mind and are going to extend Rutledge Avenue, is that what he said? Schlekeway: No, they are going to shift it back over, it used to be Rutledge Avenue and that is why I never had any objection up front to Haven Cove No. 2 because I was provided access there and I wasn't becoming landlocked. and that was changed to a culdesac I guess, but I think 1 should have at least been notified of that. Johnson: any questions of Mr. Schlekeway? Rountree: You have no access off of Pine? Schlekeway: Just an easement, a gravel road easement. I don't know if that is wide enough for streets or anything, I don't think it is. Rountree: How big is your parcel? Schlekeway: 8.7 acres Johnson: Apparently we did receive some ACHD comments late today, I'm going to make these available to you. Pertinent here is probably comment #3, they say 2 stub streets have been proposed to the westerly boundary of the project but Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 17 none that the staff recommends that at least 1 stub street be provided to the easterly boundary. (End of Tape) I haven't had a chance to read this, apparently it came in late this afternoon. You can have a copy of this, we will get you a copy of this. Anything else, thank you very much. Sir, you wanted to testify? Thomas Geile, 2150 West Pine, was sworn by the Attorney. Geile: I own the piece of property just east of the proposed Haven Cove No. 5, and my biggest concern is to have a sewer access through some point of that project as my piece of property all drains from the east to the west which would be bordering that Haven Cove, the slope of all of my property goes that direction. In order to get any sewer attachment it would appear if I was to develop my property I would have to pump it in some direction in order to get out other than to go through that particular project. So, I was wanting to know if the sewer in that project is going to be at the depth that would take my piece of property. Johnson: That is a good question, we'll see if we can get you an answer, it may not be tonight. Geile: Okay, then the road access to my property, is that something that is a must at Warrior Drive or can that be extended through to Washington or as Mr. Schlekeway suggested in the back for the better use of my piece of property I don't have any idea what would be for the better for my piece of property. If they say this is where it is going to be without consulting myself then I would at this point have an objection if they say this is where you are going to get your road whether you like it or not. Johnson: Again, without having reviewed these ACHD comments I don't know if they have touched on that or not. Its about 3 pages of type written material. Geile: Then I guess the last thing that 1 have is the layout of this particular subdivision looks pretty boxy to me. I think it might put a little more imagination into the layout of these streets. Other than that I think this is all I need to say at this particular time. You do have my letter? Johnson: I don't have it in my packet, I will ask Will if he has it. Thank you very much sir. Do you have the letter, any of you? Anyone else from the public like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I'll close the public hearing. Shearer: Could we get the Engineer back? I still am not clear on which street he Meridian Planning & "Coning February 8, 1994 Page 18 is talking about coming through. Johnson: You want to talk to Mr. Collins, sure. I'll re-open the public hearing so we can officially hear Mr. Collins. Shearer: Did you indicate that Rutledge Avenue was coming on through now on the old subdivision? Collins: On the old one, no sir. originally Mr. Schlekeway talked to me after the original Preliminary plat submittal a couple of years ago on Haven Cove to the north and I indicated to him that I definitely would provide him with that access but that was subsequently changed by the Highway District again with the concern of inter-connecting that area. I did try to get a hold of you a couple of times by phone, I didn't mail you a letter, which was probably my fault, but I did try to contact him to try to let him know that had happened. Shearer: Which one, you got Warrior Street on through but you indicated another, I got the indication that you said there was, welt 1 thought it was Rutledge Avenue that was going on through. Didn't you say there was another one going through? Collins: To the west of the northwest corner of this, 100 feet into the adjoining parcel. Shearer: Okay Collins: It originally inter-connection was being discussed as being up at Morris Street at the north however, their concern was through flow, which by the way changed the design radically on this plat, because Mr. Geile's parcel as it develops with a connection further to the south would encourage people in his northwest area to go get on Pine Street down to the Ten Mile and make the right and up to Cherry Lane and do what they want at the signal up there. Rather than having very few turns to go through they would have one on Mora, they would go over and get on Stucker and have 2 more turns and be right up on Cherry Lane. So the traffic engineer a the Highway District in the discussion indicated he wanted it further to the south down there. That is one reason this is laid out its got 6 turns before you are finally in the northwest corner up here and nine by the time you get clear through the subdivision to the north. That is really going to discourage especially if 1 can get the District to sign some of intersections stop, it is really going to slow traffic down. Johnson: Thanks David, Mr. Forrey did you want to comment regarding your Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 19 letter on this or have I pretty well covered that? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, during the staff review we discovered that the files were insufficient and we couldn't verify that some of the agencies had all of the information that they needed to make informed decisions and there is always that chance that if they would have had other information that is in the file that didn't get copied they their comments may be different. So, in fairness to the agencies and theapplicantt we felt it was appropriate to have the hearing and keep a record of the comments tonight but hopefully you would allow the staff to re-submit all the information to the agencies and then re-look at this in one month at your March meeting if there is any additional comments that might affect the decisions. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any questions for Mr. Forrey? Rountree: Has that been done, it will be tomorrow if that is the Commissions action. Shearer: We need to table this until next month then, that is what you are saying? Johnson: Anyone else before I close the public hearing again. Geile: If we are talking about slowing down the traffic on Cherry Lane to West Pine, do you think in any terms at all it might be a problem that there would not be a street access allowed from my property to Pine? Rountree: You currently have access there now? Geile: I have the same road, its been strictly a users road, that road is only 28 feet wide when I bought my piece of property. It goes up along the east portion of my property into Mr. Schlekeway's property. I believe and I don't know for sure whether the High School has any part of that access or not, they use the road to maintain their field there but in the original time I believe the property was all for my access and tot he piece of property in the back, Mr. Schlekeway's. Rountree: Do you have any frontage on Pine Street at all? Geile: Yes I do, I have I think 832 feet, so if we are talking about not wanting access through from Pine to Cherry Lane I think we ought to also take into consideration if they are going to say we have one coming out here on Rutledge Road we are not going to allow me one. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 20 Johnson: Okay, thank you sir, anyone else? I will now close the public hearing, what would you like to do gentlemen? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, at the suggestion of staff I'd like to make a motion that we table this item until next meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded that we table this item until our next regular scheduled meeting, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LANDING #7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, would Mr. Johnson or someone else like to address this Commission please come forward now. Ted Johnson, was sworn by the Attorney. T. Johnson: Mr. Chairman member of the Commission, I'm applying for a Preliminary plat of 14.34 acres of ground that was recently annexed to the City of Meridian which would connect a portion of the Landing subdivision out to Linder Road throughost an alignment with Waltman Lane but the 2 will not connect into the middle of the project. We reviewed the provisions set out in the staff reports there have been some discussions with ACHD and I believe that there is no problem with anything that has been set out in staff reports with one comment, item 11 on the staff comments has to do with a line extension that may come at a later time but required with this one and we feel that should come more appropriately at another phase it would be on our east side instead of our west side. So, we would like to think that is not a requirement but a notice that would be talking about that on another phase when they get on the other side of the project. There may be some slight modification on the configuration of the lots based on item 4, we were unaware that the excluding the easements and right of ways was outside of the 8,000 square foot requirements. Other than that 1 think we have no other concerns about the staff report if there are any questions I'd be glad to answer them. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much, any questions for Mr. Johnson? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 21 Hepper: How about item #10, which suggested you put a stub street to the north? T. Johnson: Thank you for reminding me, we are prepared to do that. We've talked with staff with ACHD about a location for that for a little stub in on the north side at a location that would be suitable to our staff and ACHD. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Johnson Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question for Mr. Johnson. It says on your application here that the minimum square footage of the structure is to be 1300 square feet, and I believe that is R-4 zone is that correct it is R-4? T. Johnson: Yes that is correct Hepper: Our City Ordinance requires 1400 square feet minimum. T.Johnson: That is fine, I appreciate your mentioning it to me. Johnson: Thanks Tim, this is a public hearing anyone else like to come forward and address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I'll close the public hearing. Freckleton: 1 just wanted to answer Mr. Johnson's question regarding item #11, the water model will be run for this particular phase of the Landing if it is determined in the water model that our system at present does not have the capacity to handle this phase that is where this requirement would come that the additional line be extended and it is for a fire flow and domestic capacity type analysis. Johnson: Thanks Bruce, anybody have any questions of anyone before I close the public hearing? I'II now close the public hearing. This is a Preliminary plat. Shearer: Do we need Findings? Johnson: We don't need Findings. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend to the City Council a favorable response on this Preliminary plat given that they meet the conditions and requirements as specified by the staff review and ACHD. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, ] 994 Page 22 Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Preliminary plat with conditions so stated by Mr. Rountree, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NAVARRO SUBDIVISION BY FOUR T'S INC. AND KEITH LOVELESS: Hepper; Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict on this, so I will need to step down. Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is there someone representing the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission? Keith Loveless, Loveless Engineering, 3330 Gray Street, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Loveless: I don't know whether you got your ACHD letter or not in the packets because they just came to me today in my office. I did take the liberty of making some copies. This is a 36 lot subdivision infill project we are completely surrounded by either completed developments or ones that are under construction to the west. Two of the lots in the 36 will have existing homes on them fronting on Pine Street, the rest of the lots will face internal. The street configuration with no access of any lot directly to Pine except for those 2 existing homes. We've had to provide State Street through as a straight shot through to maintain the existing sewer line so we couldn't achieve any curve or linear look to that so there is some concern by the Highway district there about high speed traffic on State and me too, if I get real animated there might be a cross drain on State Street someplace. We've also asked for a variance for this zone since the width has gone to 80 feet, this particular parcel all the streets were adjoining up were virtually on the old 70 foot wide scenario and if we were to do the 80 foot lots we would be having a complete subdivision practically with all the lots in excess of 10,000 square feet which I believe kind of exceeds the market area for the size of lots. So what we have asked to do is to step down the lot widths but we have all Tots are in excess of 8,000 square feet we have met the area requirements. In no way are we asking for a waiver of your gross area on the lots or even a change in the size of the housing on there. We are providing a landscaped berm along Pine Street where we have the double frontage lots and we are proposing and ACHD doesn't oppose except we need to modify so we can get into a driveway on the corner lot and entry lot to provide a more controlled access in an out onto Pine Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 23 Street by putting an island in there and keeping people lined up a little better at the intersection. So, ACRD is in total agreement with the road alignment, I guess our big question for the City tonight is to ask for a waiver on the width and allow us to proceed with the narrower lots but with the full 8,000 plus square foot. If you have any other questions I'd be willing to answer them. Johnson: Okay, just time out a minute. Jim Merkle could you close the back door please. Any questions of the engineer Mr. Loveless? Loveless: This density does equate about 3.6 units to the acre, we are not approaching the 4 unit. Shearer: Its the only subdivision I've seen in months that doesn't have a dead end in it. You won't be able to get lost in this one. Loveless: I think it fits the neighborhood right, I think we tried to accommodate everything we could and still use the land as best we could manage. Shearer: It makes a tot of sense. Johnson: As I understand it a block of this island is no longer an issue, is it? Loveless: Its no longer an issue with ACHD as long as we have a homeowners association to take care of it and we have to have that for the landscaped berm along Pine Street. Johnson: Well, there is a comment here that it blocks access to one of the tots. Loveless: Well, we are going to shorten it up about have the length and that will open up the driveway, because we want to keep that driveway as far away from Pine street as we can. Johnson: I thought that had been taken care of. Loveless: That comment is there, we just haven't crafted anything for you to see tonight. Johnson: Thank you Keith, we might have to call you back. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to come forward and address the Commission on this application? Mr. Allison, you need to be sworn Rich. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 24 Rich Allison, 1 108 West 4th, was sworn by the Attorney. Allison: One comment I was going to make is the reason that this sewer line came about was Mr. Navarro with a point not to distant past cooperated with Corrine Daffair who wanted to develop their property. Cowin Daffair could not sewer their property going any other way than basically through his property. And at the time that he did it they set it up on a 120 foot width which is prior to the passage of the Ordinance. And in actuality one of the lots I believe in the subdivision is going to end up 14, 400 square feet because of the way the configuration is. I just wanted to affirm that actually this came about because of Mr. Navarro's cooperation in the past with Corrine Daffair. I have no further comments. Johnson: Thank you rich, anyone else that would like to come forward? Any further questions by the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is also a Preliminary plat. Shearer: Mr. Chairman 1 move we recommend approval of the Preliminary plat. Alidjani: Its moved and seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary plat for Navarro Subdivision, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: I'll now open the Public Hearing, is there someone representing the applicant that would like to address the Commission, you need to be sworn sir. Jim Merkle, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Merkle: I'm here tonight on behalf of Max Boesiger the applicant. This .74 acre annexation and zoning request for R-4 zoning is located along Ustick Road at the very southeast corner of the existing Summertield Subdivision. Approximately 1900 feet east of Locust Grove Road. This area should have been included in the original annexation and zoning request with the Summertield Subdivision which was approved last summer. However, at that time the actual property line between the subdivision and the existing residents on Ustick Road, its kind of an out parcel of the subdivision was not agreed upon. Now that the actual location of the property line is between the subdivision and existing residents has been Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 25 agreed upon we're here tonight to request to finalize annexation of that small little piece. I've read Wayne Forrey's comments to you and agree that this area will be subject to the conditions of approval of Summerfield Subdivision which was approved by Planning & Zoning and City Council last summer. If you have any questions I'd be glad to try and answer them for you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Merkle, any questions of the engineer representing the applicant? Rountree: Have you seen ACHD's comments? Merkle: I have not seen them, but I was at their tech review 10 days ago and I think there were 3 of them, 1 regarding dedicating right of way and no access on Ustick and 1 can't remember the other one on their site specific requirements. Rountree: In order to meet those are you going re-plat that end of the subdivision and that a culdesac to access that property, or how are you going to access it? Merkle: The culdesac, it won't be a culdesac anymore it will be looped up to the north to tie back into the road to the north. If we extended the culdesac it would be in excess of your 450 foot Ordinance so that would just be looped back up and tied back in. Johnson: I guess 1 gave you the original on that one, we will get you a copy. Any other questions of Mr. Merkle? Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Donahue: The only thing that I wanted to have on public record tonight was that it was an old farm house that they want to annex into the Summerfield Subdivision and the only thing I kind did was I called the quality environmental woman and talked to Rebecca Going and I want it on public record that they probably need to check that house for asbestos before they tear it down and add it to the subdivision and make sure that it is in regulation of any SHAP40CFR ,Part 61, Sub-Part M, so that they don't just tear that down and have all the asbestos in the area where we live. And second of all, I wanted to note that the subdivisions that are going around North Locust Grove and Ustick I've called twice to ACHD there is mud all over the roads and its very hazardous especially when it was foggy, you can't even see the center lines and people almost hit me head because they are looking for the road. Is there some kind of Ordinance or something when the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 26 development is being done, you know these are our roads to that they can keep them clean of the mud on their property lines. Because people can't even jog or take walks down the roads anymore its pretty sad. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mrs. Donahue, any questions for Mrs. Donahue? Rountree: I have a question, in your discussion with Rebecca did she indicate to you the situation of outer residents and whether or not asbestos regulations need to be followed with the demolition or removal for single family residence. Donahue: She stated to me that any resident, she was supposed to be notified 10 days before its to be torn down so they can check for that and have a permit to do it. And she does not know if it is all being done around in the Meridian area, it was one of her concerns because she says the developer being from Idaho Falls might know all the regulations that are in Meridian. Shearer: He'll have to get a demolition permit to tear that house down. Donahue: There is also one on the previous subdivision too, an old farm house, so there are 2 homes. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Anyone else like to address the Commission on this, would you like to make a rebuttal remark Mr. Markle? Markle: Regarding the asbestos in the house on Ustick, that residence on Ustick is not going to be part of the subdivision. This annexation does not include that house, that house will stay there. The other house she is referring to on Locust Grove is in Summerfield Plat No. 2 which is going to be before the Council in a couple weeks and in talking to Mr. Voight, he is the developer of that particular piece they are going to incorporate that house into the subdivision and leave it there. And she is correct if they do any demolition they have to deal with the asbestos problem if there is any there. She is correct on that statement. Regarding the mud on the streets that is something that ACRD requires the contractor to do, to keep the streets clean, if they haven't they are in violation of ACHD's requirements. Johnson: That is a problem, I drive that street and !know what she is talking about, and when that freezes, the mud freezes after its wet its even worse because you feel like this. She is right, you can't see the center line anyway, so it is bad. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 27 Shearer: I would think on something like that the City could also call them and ask them to clean it. Johnson: In some areas and particularly on Ustick right now its poor. Thank you, anyone else from the public before I close the public hearing? Are they anymore comments or questions from the Commissioners? If not then I will close the public hearing at this time. This will require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw up Findings of Fact for this application. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and 2 seconds to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Summerfield subdivision, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Next item not on our agenda, Mr. Wayne Forrey has requested 5 minutes of the Commission at which time you may have it. Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I just wanted to say 2 things, first of all you are all aware that the City has advertised for afull- time Planning Director. About 4 months ago we thought and I thought and I believe the Mayor and Council felt that I could probably handle it 2 days a week, but its pretty busy trying to keep up with you and everybody else. So the Mayor and Council felt like it was in the best interest of the Community to get a full-time Planning Director/Zoning Administrator to assist and also we found that a lot of things at times were falling through the cracks and many times the Commission felt like it needed some real detail follow up and enforcement kind of inspector function almost to go through all the Findings of Fact and all the minutes of the meetings and follow up on all these items that get promised at this pulpit but then maybe a year or 2 from now we find that they are not built. So the Mayor and the selection committee really focused on a detail oriented person that had a good track record of managing projects, checking the details, crossing is and dotting i's. And the City has offered the position to Shari Stiles, she has accepted, the Council has approved the hiring of a new Planner and Zoning Administrator. She is right here on the front row, I wanted to introduce her to you tonight. She starts on Valentine's Day, February 14th and we're going to have probably a month or so of transition. I'll still be assisting on some projects but Shari will be moving in a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 28 direction of getting involved, 1'll probably be weaning out a little bit, but she is a very terrific young lady a lot of private sector experience and public sector experience. In fact as I have introduced her name a few developers in meetings we've had, most of them know her which I think is a compliment because that means she understands the process, she worked for JUB Engineers for about 10 years and then Government for about 2 years as a consultant working for other cities. I think she is going to do a terrific job, but I will say this, this is a compliment to Shari, she is a very detail oriented. I admit I'm probably not as detail oriented as I should be I just never have but I think you will find that Shari will probably bring to you annoying details at times and say, "Charlie you said at the hearing", "Did you mean 6 foot fence or 16 inches" or whatever that is the kind of person that she is and I think that is what we all wanted someone to do that kind of checking as well as planning analysis which she is very capable of doing. So, introduce yourself to Shari and let's all make her feel welcome. Johnson: We are certainly glad she is here. You did tell her we are very demanding also we expect a little leeway once in awhile, a little flexibility. Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman Johnson: Well its nice to have afull-time Planning Director. We need someone else to blame besides us. Anybody have anything else, we have a reminder here. We have a workshop scheduled for February 22nd and Shari you are certainly welcome to be there, we are going to touch on a couple of things and specifically the landscape ordinance. We would appreciate your input. Forrey: The Corporate Valley or excuse me Central Valley Corporate Park, Bob Nahas brought me a copy of this today. We were reviewing one of his development plans for the tlexible warehouse office space that is under construction and we are going over the landscape plan and of course that project exceeds dramatically our own landscape requirement and I was so impressed he has quite a landscape specification in here I think it is something we could look at on the 22nd. Johnson: You bet, we will add that to our packet of other material we have collected from other cities. Give it to Will and he can copy it. Shearer: Jim, 1've got a conflict on the 22nd, I can probably still make it but if anybody else is wanting to change that date, I'd sure push for it. Johnson: We've had other dates proposed and made some changes, we were Meridian Planning & Zoning February 8, 1994 Page 29 going to do it the 16th and Charlie is out of town that date. Do you have a dart tournament that day? That's what I figured. Shearer: No, I've got a date. Johnson: Does the time of the meeting have anything to do with it? Shearer: Well, I'll make the meeting. Johnson: We could juggle maybe the time if that would help you, because I think we started that at 6:00. I have a real problem with, I only have a couple evenings free. Shearer: I just wanted to bring it up if anyone else had any conflicts that might influence you. Johnson: Does anyone else have a problem with that date, if not we'll just go ahead with the 22nd. Anybody have anything else? How about a motion? Rountree: I move to adjourn. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) JIMjJOH 11~SO~d', CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~~r~ WILLIAM G 7// i7 ~~~ ., BERG, JR., PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: FHONE NUMBER: ~4 2~ 7 - oc~~ ~~%~- ~ ~ 7 -~ ~ i~~v~ ~~l-~~ ~s~~~ ~ ~i ~~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMF[ISSION USTICR ROAD ANNEXATION AND .ZONING .74 ACRES OF A PORTION OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on February 8, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Jim Merkle, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoninq Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 8, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 8, 1994, 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 the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1 ~ i annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is .74 acres in size; it is located at the Northeast corner of the Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road intersection. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development. 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, as of the date of application, the owner of record of the property. The owner of record is the Vienna F. Vaughn Trust; there is no consent of the owner of record in the files of the City of Meridian. Prior to annexation, proof of consent to annexation of the owner of record must be filed with the City. 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 R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for a house and for agriculture use; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 type FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2 subdivision use and would be included in the platting with a future phase of the approved Summerfield Subdivision. 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the application. 11. That the prope=ty is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 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 physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, the Central District Health Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District may submit comments and such will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments which state that this annexation was submitted at his FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3 ~ i requests to "clean up" and accurately describe the Summerfield project; that this land was included in the preliminary plat of Summerfield subdivision but the legal description did not include the land. 16. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the developer, or his predecessor in interest agreed that the minimum house size in the Summerfield Subdivision would be 1,500 square feet. 17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the .area. 22. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, in his comments in the Summerfield Subdivision property annexation, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan with the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5 exception of adequate fire protection to serve this development area; that a pathway concept design plan must be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation for their approval and compliance with the Ada County Pathway Plan. The Planning Director further stated that the Meridian comprehensive Plan indicates a need for afire station in this area. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat should be a redesign to include an 'access street and bridge to the east over 9 Mile Drain to link various existing subdivisions together and meet the School District's need for pedestrian access between subdivisions. He further commented that sewer lot number 18 should allow pedestrian access. The Director further commented that a development agreement must be entered into addressing subdivision access linkage and fire services and that such agreement must be entered into prior to final plat approval. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 24. The Meridian School District. in prior comments to annexation in this area, commented that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of new subdivisions could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6 fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:. "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population ,does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 7 i • in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. That Section I1-9-605 A 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 8 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desiun Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That since this property was initially included in the preliminary plat of Summerfield Subdivision, but not in the legal description, the findings of fact that were adopted as part of the annexation procedure for the Summerfield Subdivision property are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 9 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 application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the 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, Max A. Boesiger, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but is at the request of the City Planning Director. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 10 Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedu:Les and requirements and 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, for the Summerfield Subdivision application, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved and the subdivision; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. The development agreement for this application shall be done in conjunction with the development agreement for the Summerfield Subdivision property annexation. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 11 available and will have to be maintained. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 12. It is concluded that the development is an R-4 type development and the property should be zoned in that fashion, upon meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 13. 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 R-4; 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 requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning or R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That since this property was initially included in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 12 • preliminary plat of Summerfield Subdivision, but not in the legal description, the conclusions of law that were adopted as part of the annexation procedure for the Summerfield Subdivision property are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 15. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED VOTED VOTED G/,~-- VOTED `',~'~-i CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED ON The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above in the Conclusions of Law for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED:I_~. DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 13 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION USTICK ROAD ANNERATION AND ZONING .74 ACRES OF A PORTION OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on February 8, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Jim Merkle, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 8, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 8, 1994, 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 the property included in the 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 .74 acres in size; it is located at the Northeast corner of the Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road intersection. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development. 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, as of the date of application, the owner of record of the property. The owner of record is the Vienna F. Vaughn Trust; there is no consent of the owner of record in the files of the City of Meridian. Prior to annexation, proof of consent to annexation of the owner of record must be filed with the City. 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 R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for a house and for agriculture use; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 type FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2 subdivision use and would be included in the. platting with a future phase of the approved Summerfield Subdivision. 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the application. 11. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be• developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 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 physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, the Central District Health Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District may submit comments and such will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments which state that this annexation was submitted at his FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3 requests to "clean up" and accurately describe the Summerfield project; that this land was included in the preliminary plat of Summerfield subdivision but the legal description did not include the land. 16. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the developer, or his predecessor in interest agreed that the minimum house size in the Summerfield Subdivision would be 1,500 square feet. 17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family,, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4 ~. 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive .Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows.: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 20. That the Meridian Housing Policies, at page 66, Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, it states as'follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the .area. 22. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, in his comments in the Summerfield Subdivision property annexation, commented that the R-4 request complied with the. Comprehensive Plan with the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5 exception of adequate fire protection to serve this development area; that a pathway concept design plan must be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation for their approval and compliance with the Ada County Pathway Plan. The Planning Director further stated that the Meridian comprehensive Plan indicates a need for afire station in this area. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat should be a redesign to include an access street and bridge to the east over 9 Mile Drain to link various existing subdivisions together and meet the School District's need for pedestrian access between subdivisions. He further commented that sewer lot number 18 should allow pedestrian access. The Director further commented that a development agreement must be entered into addressing subdivision access linkage and fire services and that such agreement must be entered into prior to final plat approval. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Director has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 24. The Meridian School District. in prior comments to annexation in this area, commented that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of new subdivisions could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6 fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, L•o deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,. parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population ,does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on .residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 7 in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required 'to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. That Section I1-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 8 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That since this property was' initially included in the preliminary plat of Suauperfield Subdivision, but not in the legal description, the findings of fact that were adopted as part of the annexation procedure for the Summerfield Subdivision property are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 9 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 application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the 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, Max A. Boesiger, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but is at the request of the City Planning Director. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 10 Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements and 11-9-605 M, Piping of .Ditches; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, for the Summerfield Subdivision application, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved and the subdivision; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. The development agreement for this application, shall be done in conjunction with the development agreement for the Summerfield Subdivision property annexation. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 11 available and will have to be maintained. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 12. It is concluded that the development is an R-4 type development and the property should be zoned in that fashion, upon meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 13. 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 R-4; 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 ,requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning or R-4, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That since this property was initially included in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 12 preliminary plat of Summerfield Subdivision, but not in the legal description, the conclusions of law that were adopted as part of the annexation procedure for the Summerfield Subdivision property are incorporated herein by this reference as if aet forth in full. 15. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED=~~ VOTED ~~-- -- VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DSCISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above in the Conclusions of Law for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 13 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) I (INITIAL) J~ APPROVED! VOTED~t VOTED '~` VOTED ~ VOTED `~+`~+ J.l G,•L- DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- SUMMERFIELD ANNEXATION