Loading...
1993 12-14• MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993: (APPROVED) l: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY ENGINEER FOR VALERI HEIGHTS BY VICKI WELKER: (APPROVED) 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 11, 1994) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSON AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY LESLIE PALMER: (PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT PRESENTATION OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993: ~1L11leGCi 1: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY ENGINEER FOR VALERI H IGHTS BY VICKI WELKER: -f~(2.LC//,f/h~t-~ ~' 1CofLCR~ ~"eCEI L~C.~ 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIO S OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST sY~~o~~~lL~ ~-e~vN~~ E SZ-~,..~.:~ ~1dP~e%p~~a~ea. 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION D.J. INVEST ENTS AND BRIGGS E GINEERING: ~or~o-~z d~~,~~ o~~a~fs ~ ~~2 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQU T FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER: 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSON AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: 7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY LESLIE PALMER: 8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT PRESENTATION OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION: ~~~~!' ~2 -~~~~ ~ -- ~~Ii~~~f' - c`~f r.~eG2~ liJ/~'e ~-re e~i~-rJ _,_~~- ~ _~r _ _ - - - __ ~~ ~- ~~J- ~ f ~2vr~~~~c ~~ ~ - - _. - -. . C~~,_ d ~' }o ~i fig? e~~-c'~~ ~_-~~~ ~"(~ c'/ . _ __ _ ~~ _~,tizu~ w - --- - - ,. ~';~ __ -- -- - ~- ~.- _ - -- 2 ~~~ ~ C~c~{~~cU~ ~~`~ - __ _ _ ~. -- ter- ~~_ ___ '~~~~ ~ ~(/~- ~~_ _~S _ l`~~? - - - ~ __t ---- __ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ - - - - --yam _~~---- ~ ~~y~- ~~ ___ _. _- --- _ _ __- - - - _ ___ _ -, __ -- -- ;ice- ------------- -- ---- -- ---- ~! _. _ -- ~ - ~~ a- - _- -ar --__ __ _ _ _ _ -- - -------- - .~ ___ ~ - ,~_ - _--_ --- -- -- C G~-~~ y" ,~ ---- ~ - ~ - ~ .; -- ~~~v~: _ ~,~ ~~~ RIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING __ _ -__. DECEMBER 14. 1993 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson: Members Present: Charles Rountree, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Gary Smith, Clifford D. Babbitt, Frank W. Stoppello, John S. Shipley, J. G. McDermot, Lydia Aguire, Raleigh Hawe, Ira Van Elg, Dave Roylance, Marty Goldsmith: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1993: Johnson: You all have copies of the minutes and have read them are there any additions, corrections or deletions? We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes, there is a minor correction necessary on page nineteen, second paragraph, additions should be conditions under my comments there. That is the only thing of any substance that needs to be corrected. All in favor of approving the minutes with that one correction? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: PRELIMINARY PLAT (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND CITY ENGINEER FOR VALERI HEIGHTS BY VICKI WELKER: Johnson: It is my understanding we did not receive the revised Preliminary Plat so we can't act on this. Is that correct for the record? Any comments, questions? Rountree: Do you need another motion to table? Mr. chairman I make a motion we table that item until the next scheduled meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table item #1 until our next regularly scheduled meeting which will be in January, all in favor? opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT AND MIKE SCISCOE: Johnson: What is your pleasure? Rountree: Well we had some need for discussion, we don't have the Findings of Fact at this time. Johnson: That's right. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 2 Rountree: The concerns I had with this particular item are identified in the minutes, but the establishment of the precedence of potential of strip development starting to go out Meridian Road with this CG zoning at that location. Two commercial establishments and an unknown use of residency with this zoning could very well go to a commercial use as well. It is inconsistent with our current plan I believe and definitely not consistent with our proposed Comp Plan. If you want Mr. Forrey to speak to some of those issues. Johnson: Before we get to Mr. Forrey, does anyone else have any comments? Shearer: Every project that we have and we have a public hearing on we get the negative side of everything, everybody is against all these projects. This particular project is in a mixed use zone which I would say a commercial project fits in good mixed use zone. The property completing surrounding it or almost completely surrounding the proposed property is owned by the same owner so if there is any lowering of land values it will be the same owner that will suffer those. I think that maybe government intervention is a little bit to heavy in this. I hope that these people want to do something with their land, and I think its their land and as long as its not damaging someone else I think that we should grant it and that is my feeling. And as far as strip zoning, everyone of these projects that we have put together is going to have to stand on its own merit because we approved this one is no sign that we will approve something else. This is zoned a mixed use, or set up in the Comp Plan as a mixed use. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Shearer. Anyone else have any comments, Mr. Hepper? Hepper: Well I'm a little bit concerned about the CG also. I think the purpose the Planning and Zoning is to establish good planning. I'm not 100$ sure that this falls into that category. I don't have any problems with their proposed use of a bookstore, I think that is fairly non-obtrusive, they are not going to be causing any problems, but is does set a precedent out in the area for CG. I'm worried about the CG, I'd like to. Shearer: That is mixed use, CG Hepper: Yes, but it also allows some fairly heavy commercial, so I'd like to maybe hear some other opinions on it. Johnson: Moe Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 3 Alidjani: I do have a problem with the CG zoning also. I believe Mr. Shearer indicated the individual owns all the land but that is true today and tomorrow and 5 years from now, but that might not be true 10-15 years from now and the conflict of that problem is going to exist at a different ownership some time in the future. So I will be against the CG zoning. Johnson: Okay, am I reading this that you feel this needs more study more input? Would you like to have some comments from our Planning Director at this point? Do you have anything you'd like to add to this Wayne? Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. During the Comprehensive Plan public hearings this was one area where citizen input asked the Commission to expand the mixed use designation. I think Mr. Raleigh Hawe brought that to the public testimony, that he felt it would be appropriate to extend that farther north than just right behind Albertson's. So the Comprehensive Plan does include this area in the mixed use land development designation. Perhaps the CN, commercial neighborhood zone, would be more appropriate. I think the commercial neighborhood would still allow the bookstore and what the owner is intending to do with the property, but if it ever sold it would place some limitations and remove maybe the negative connotation of commercial general. Maybe CN would be, if the applicant is willing, and there is also the possibility of limited office, in some cases some retail establishments can be operated in the limited office with little more restrictions but it does give some flexibility. So maybe the issue here is CG maybe the neighborhood type commercial would fit better with the mixed use plan designation in the Comp Plan. That is about the only I can offer Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Forrey on this issue? Mr. Crookston Crookston: The concern that maybe leading this situation is I think the proposed Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a mixed use area but the proposed plan is proposed it is not active at this juncture. The current Comprehensive Plan doesn't indicate that this area is to be a mixed use are. The other concern that I heard when I discussed this matter with the commission was having the entire property zoned CG when the use is proposed were a bookstore which make it into the CG but the Sciscoe's were going to use or proposed to use a house as a residence and that was not in line with the CG zoning and if the City ultimately zoned it CG the house can be used as a house for a day or 5 years and then can be Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 4 converted to any other use, any other commercial use. I'm not sure that the CG zoning itself is appropriate to place a residence into that zoning because our Ordinances now are not a step, not inclusive of everything below it in that zone. Just because commercial is allowed does not mean that residential is allowed in that zone. That was just the comments that I heard in discussing the matter of the Findings of Fact. Shearer: Would a CN allow that? Crookston: No Johnson: Wayne, briefly, would address the reason you did not prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law then. Crookston: The reason was there was a feeling that this particular application and the entire area needed to be discussed further to see if that what the commission wanted to do not only with this application but in that area since there was some feeling that this tended or would tend to lead to strip commercial down Meridian Road and there is also the requirement in the proposed plan about the landscaping necessary along Meridian Road or into any entrances into the City. Johnson: When you say the feeling you are talking about the feeling of the commissioners? Okay, for the record. I appreciate that, thank you. I would suggest that the call on this is probably to table this for further study at this point, unless someone else has another suggestion. Rountree: Would that entail the City Planner to evaluate the potential CG, CN and maybe Limited Office use. Johnson: It could include anything in there you want it to include. Rountree: Are we talking about that in terms of a study or are you wanting us to sit down and look at it? Do you want a motion? Johnson: I want a motion that makes you happy, whatever makes you happy. I think we don't have any common ground, we don't have a lot of common ground here other than things that are negative. Probably the best thing we should do at this time is to look at it further and involve Wayne Forrey. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we direct the City Planner to evaluate the requested zoning change further with Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 5 respect to the CG, CN or office space zoning categories and provide the commission with an evaluation of the potential effects how they relate to the existing Comp Plan and potential problems that might result with the future Comp Plan and present a recommendation to the commission next meeting. Johnson: That was a motion. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion on the floor and a second, so stated all in favor of that motion then? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Wayne would you be willing to provide us with a short written document on those items that Mr. Rountree wanted addressed, thank you. ITEM ~f3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION BY D.J. INVESTMENTS AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: Johnson: This is a public hearing, I'll now open the public hearing is there a representative from the applicant that would like to come forward, or the applicant himself and address the commission. You need to be sworn by the City attorney please. Ira Van Elg, 2408 Squire Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Van Elg: Thank you, I'm here to represent D.J. Investments on behalf of King Street Station. This is a unique application for Meridian. You probably can't see this picture, many of you may have seen it as you were coming up to your chairs. We do have a rendering of the proposed subdivision. This subdivision involves the development of an Old Town Section of Meridian zoned OT, which encourages a variety mix of uses including medium to high density residential development. This application has a proposal that contains 20 townhouse type units, they come in clusters of 4. There have been since we met and submitted the application we have met with the Highway District and drawn up some modifications to the plan to accommodate the Highway District requirements. As you can see one of the requirements from the Highway District was that William Street not be connected to Meridian Road, so we have tried to accommodate that. We have connected Williams Street to the project as a secondary access. The improved service will be 24 feet wide there. The other requirement or request that the Highway District had was that we taper and widen Meridian Road to allow for Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 6 additional right of way acquisition. Starting at block 3 of that, near the center of the development there. That has been tapered to a 45 foot wide from centerline to the property line at King street, right there at the corner. As far as any other requests we'd certainly comply with the requirements of the Ada County Highway District as far as the installation of curb/gutter/sidewalk as required, improvements along King Street and dedication of any right of way. I might address one particular point of interest on this application, that is that because of the nature of this townhouse type development, these lots are intended to be sold as individual lots which would increase the tax base as compared to an apartment complex type development, but because they are being sold as individual lots there is a sideyard setback requirement that has to be met and we have submitted a variance application and it should be heard by the Council and it should tag this application when it reaches the Council. Meridian's Ordinances really doesn't address such development, its a unique nature. I believe it will be an asset to the community and certainly does provide a mix use and a variety of housing that Meridian doesn't have at this point, especially where it is encouraged in the Old Town area. In response of some of the conditions of approval by Mr. Smith, the City Engineer, item #8, I believe you have those in your staff packages, addresses the irrigation along the east side of Meridian Road. We understand his concern and that ditch will be piped. As far as lighting along the interior parking areas, that will also be addressed. One other item that you might note ont he site plan is that there is a couple of parking spaces on your original site plans, you'll notice that where Williams Street now comes through there were I believe 3 parking spaces there but because we've connected Williams Street to the development now as a secondary access those 3 parking spaces were eliminated. We therefore, to comply with the parking requirements 40 parking spaces we had to increase that center bay of parking along that access drive way. And we gained one additional parking space, we do meet the parking requirements. The only that we would ask is that you accept the, there are 2 additional compact spaces that should be addressed and accepted in this process. That basically concludes my comments, I'm certainly open to any questions that you might have at this point. Johnson: Okay, thank you. I'm sure we will have some. Any questions of the representative at this point? Shearer: Yes, I was wondering if he had seen the comments from Nancy Taylor. Van Elg: I haven't. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 7 Johnson: Nancy Taylor is filling in for Wayne Forrey on this because Wayne has a conflict on this. He owns property near that area. Is there anything in there you want to ask him about, do you want to give him a copy? I know you had a reason for asking that. Shearer: Well, I think maybe he should have a look through there and see if there is anything in there that concerns him and should be ironed out at this time. Van Elg: Could I just have time to sit down and maybe you could proceed while I review this? Johnson: Yes, we will call you back. This is a public hearing anyone else from the public like to come forward and address the commission on this application? Everyone is here for a different reason, okay your time is up. Unknown: I have a letter here from the notice of the hearing and I'd like for someone to read that to see how it describes that property. Johnson: The description here. okay, apparently Mr. Berg is aware of the error in here, do you want to explain that for the record. Berg: I don't know what the error is. Johnson: Well, we can clarify that right now I think. The number of units is that what you are concerned about? Unknown: Well, yes. Johnson: Because it is confusing right, it says 5 four-plexes and then it says 25 single-family dwelling lots, is that the conflict that you are concerned about? Do you want to address that? Van Elg: There are 20 dwelling lots in the application, the remaining lots would all be held in common area. Undivided common interest. Johnson: So, this should have read 20 lots, rather than 25. I hope that answers your question so we got a D for that. Anything there that you would like to comment on? Van Elq: I don't have any particular concerns. Shearer: I didn't have any particular concerns with that its just that it hit my box after 4:00 this afternoon, so I figured he hadn't seen it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 8 Johnson: Thank you Van Elg: Would you like this back? Shearer: No, you can keep it. Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward on this? Rountree: I had a question about the conversation with ACHD about the taper on lot, well I show lot 1 block 1 to King Street 245 Feet from 40 feet from centerline, I know we have a representative from ACHD today. I'll pose this question, did they indicate a problem from the intersection of Meridian Road and Franklin with the 40 foot from centerline right of way that they would be restricted to in this area if they ever had to do any intersection improvements? Van Elq: Perhaps Mr. Sale could address that. Johnson: Yes, Larry we need to get you sworn and have you speak into the microphone please. Larry Sale, ACRD 318 E 37th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney Sale: Mr. chairman, Mr. Rountree, frankly we would prefer to have 45 feet of right of way for the future improvements of Meridian road because it is identified as an arterial in your plan which is a change of designation of what we have been working with in the past. However, there is a fairly substantial building located immediately south of this project the wall of which is situated 40 feet from the center line on Meridian Road as near as we can scale from the drawing. Based on that building and our expectation that it may be easier to go west if we need more than 80 feet of right of way it may be easier to go west with the road section than to acquire part of that building in the future. We decided continue the 40 feet acquisition from Franklin all the way north to the next street which is King Street with that rationalization. Does that answer your question? Johnson: Thank you Mr. Sale. Do you have any other questions? Hepper: Nancy Taylor, work with City #3 there, it says why does the plan not include covered parking or RV parking. Would you like to address that question. Van Elg: They are town home lots, the lot is very limited by several things. It is limited by the access to Meridian Road Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 9 and ACRD not wanting access to Meridian Road, its limited by the overhead power lines that run through there and a prescriptive easement that is associated with that power line. If we are going to get the units in we're simply not going to be able to fit in the covered parking and meet all the setback requirements for these units. I don't believe that in units of this, that RV parking may be that big of an issue and I certainly believe that parking on Meridian Road or King Street will be that big of a problem. I certainly wouldn't want to park my RV there on Meridian Road or King Street. Hepper: Since we don't have any elevations or floor plans or anything like that, is this rendering that you have there is that an actual rendering or is that just something similar. Van Elg: No, that is an actual rendering. We do have some other renderings, some sketches if you would like to look at those and floor plans I do have those in my file. Hepper: Yes, I would like to know basically what it is you are proposing. I'm more concerned with the elevations than the actual floor plan. Van Elg: As you can see the elevations are very similar, oh the floorplans. Hepper: No, I'm more concerned with the elevations. Van Elg: There is the front and rear elevation of each structure, you can see they are very similar. These are individual lots, the City Ordinance requires a 2 car garage per single family home, are these to be sold as a single family residence, is he going to need a variance? Johnson: Yes, our Ordinance calls for 2 car garages minimum on single family, so that is what these are, that is what those have to be, ask Wayne that would require a variance wouldn't it? Crookston: Yes. Johnson: That would be at the Council level if they so desire. Hepper: How about some landscaping, would you like to address that? Van Elg: There is landscaping that is going to be proposed along King Street. And there will be landscaping where that piping Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 10 occurs along Meridian Road. The remaining acreage around the individual pads will all be held in common ownership by and landscaped by the homeowners association. That will all be established in the covenants it will be presented to Mr. Crookston for his review. Hepper: Is there going to be any berms or fencing? Van Elg: At this point I don't know that there gardens planned for it. Hepper: Is there any fencing? Van Elg: Is there any fencing around there? Unknown: There will be fencing on the east side and possible some fencing on the west side. Van Elg: So that can be official there will be fencing on the east side and on the west side, excuse me possibly on the west side. Johnson: Does anyone have any further questions? Alidjani: I have one, nobody brought it up, I want to know if you are aware of the Idaho Power and US West asked for l0 foot easement? Van Elg: We were under the impression that they were requiring a 15 foot prescriptive easement. And we can comply with that. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much for your presentation. The public hearing is still open is someone has changed their mind. If not then I will close the public hearing, seeing no one hearing nothing. What is your pleasure gentlemen? Findings of Fact? Our typist is having a problem, so please try to use the mikes as much as possible, some of it is not being picked up on tape. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared on the application for a Conditional Use Permit. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 11 ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SAGEHEN ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: This is a public hearing, I will now open the public hearing is there a representative of the applicant who would like to come forward and address the commission? You need to be sworn. Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I'm Dave Roylance, a Civil Engineer representing the applicant. This is a residential development containing 74 lots. We propose central water, central sewer and other standard utilities. All streets shall meet the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian and be dedicated to the public. This is a phased development and we have shown phase one of our project tonight. May I answer any questions? Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance? Hepper: Is this an R-4 zone, is that what you are requesting? Roylance: Yes Shearer: I've got a question for our Attorney, do we need to reverse the order of these. I would guess that this is not adjacent to any city property until this other project is annexed, is that true? Crookston: I haven't looked at the contiguousness of either one of them. Roylance: If I might I believe that is correct, in order for Sagehen to be annexed that Upland Meadows, which is the next project on the agenda, would provide the annexation route. Shearer: Do we need to switch our agenda, or does it make any difference? Crookston: No, only one, the one that you are not hearing now simply needs to be annexed prior to this application. Shearer: So it won't make any difference. Johnson: And it could be a condition of your motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 12 Hepper: May I have Mr. Roylance circle the lots that have less than an 80 foot frontage where the R-4 designation requires an 80 foot frontage. Roylance: That has since been corrected, that was not necessarily done by design when we do these, it sounds a little weak, but when we do these by computer sometimes those lines don't come out as we expect, but anyway that has since been corrected I'm aware of that. Hepper: Does it change the overall number of lots? Roylance: No it does not. Hepper: So in other words we are still pretty much looking at the same project but just a few variations of property lines? Roylance: That is right, if the lots did change they would go down and not up, but we don't anticipate the number of lots to change. Rountree: Would you hold that up again, it might answer some of the questions I had. So you have replatted those lots at the entrance where (inaudible) which ever that, that is a different plan than we have. Roylance: It is not substantially different, but none the less it is different and we have done that to try to address some of the concerns. Also, here in the following project, which is right across the street here, we were requested by ACHD to align the streets of both projects with each other even though we are not hearing that project tonight that also did dictate a change on this project as far as the impact to the City as far as the issues. I wouldn't think that would substantially change but we did make minor modifications to bring this in compliance with the City code and the requirements of ACHD. Rountree: Did you have that discussion with ACRD with respect to their concerns about traffic studies and that sort of thing? Roylance: Yes we have. In fact they have requested a traffic study and we have authorized Gary Funkhouser and his representatives and it should be completed December 21. Johnson: With the (inaudible) in our decision making process, when that is done, when you do a revision in the eleventh hour perhaps you could give us a copy of that so we would have something to look at it at our desk or in our packets. Because we are looking at something totally different. Fortunately, Charlie picked up on that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 13 Roylance: I apologize for that, I realize it is not good form to submit one project and then bring in another. It was done in the spirit of trying to make things form and not an attempt to pull a fast one, but I do appreciate your concerns. Johnson: There have also been canine that have graduated from college. Hepper: What about fencing or berms, landscaping, anything up front along the street there. Roylance: We intend to berm along the street, you can see the landscape lot, I hope its on your plat is on this plat. Hepper: No it isn't Roylance: I see, we do intend to provide a berm along Locust Grove and we do intend to fence the perimeter of the project, we may not fence the phase line, but we do intend to fence the perimeter. We also intend to fence along the canal through here, along the Nine Mile Canal. Hepper: Would that be a metal fence along the ditch there. Roylance: I had envisioned a cedar wood fence, if somebody required a chain link fence then that would be considered, it isn't what I envisioned. Hepper: Wasn't there a note in our packet that here just recently the City Council, maybe Wayne knows better, doesn't like the wood fences because people burn the weeds and the fences go along with them. Forrey: The Irrigation District Hepper: Okay, the Irrigation District, I knew there was someone who made a comment about it. I think the Irrigation District would prefer to have chain link. Roylance: Now that you mention that I'm aware of it, we would probably like to use chain link and slats for the appearance, but they may object to that. Johnson: Any further questions for Mr. Roylance? Alidjani: I've got a question, any comments regarding the 22 items that Gary has conditioned you upon? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 14 Roylance: There is nothing on Gary's list that I find out of the ordinary that we cannot do or have not done. I can explain some of those that maybe I deemed to be important if I miss something you would like to hear I'd be happy to respond to it. Regarding item #1, we did submit a legal description for annexation for only phase one of our project and as I read condition #1 it says submit a legal description prepared by a registered land surveyor for annexation and zoning of the whole piece of property. That causes a small problem for us, and the reason we didn't do that is because this is a phased purchase and Marty Goldsmith the owner has only entered into an agreement at this time to purchase phase 1 of the project. So that is what we would like submit and get annexed, as I understand it the seller has asked that he not annex other pieces until he issues and executes phase 1 of the purchase. That is the reason we have shown only what we have shown and that is the reason the description describes just phase 1 of our project. Alidjani: How about phase 2, 3, if you have a problem if you don't that is fine. Roylance: No, these are all doable things. The answer to #2 is the same as #1. We do have a very conceptual layout for the total property we'd be happy to share that with you but since we were asking for consideration of phase 1 that is really at this point all I have turned in. We do have a concept plan for the entire project for this one and the one you will hear in a minute and I can submit that to Gary. Regarding the well lot, we can deal with that issue, that is item #3. We have corrected those deficiencies that are suggested here and if we have not we will. Would you like me to go down right through all of these? Johnson: Well, I'd like to hear your answer for #7 and 9 which are basically just questions. Roylance: Okay, regarding 7, more than a 100 lots will ultimately take access to Locust Grove Road, what other access is planned. We have arbitrailly shown at least one stub out of the property here and our conceptual plan over here shows another stub out to this location and one here. At this point those are arbitrary and we get the traffic study and when Ada County Highway District has fully read that study I'm quite sure they will suggest where certain access points should stubbed at the perimeter and we will do that. Right now I'm aware that it is very likely to be a requirement and we have shown it here and on this part we have shown another accesses here and one in this location, but I think that will be ironed out when the traffic study is complete and evaluated by ACHD. Mr. Johnson, was #9 the other one you wanted Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 15 me to discuses? Johnson: Yes Roylance: Regarding the Nine Mile Drain, I'm not sure the exact status of that, what we would like to do, if this conforms with city requirements, is fence it at the easement or the right of way, that is fence it at this location and fence it at this location. Which would be the right of way lines and not t he it and let it go at that. That is what we would like to do, that is what we have done in the past in similar projects and we hope that is affordable. Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Roylance? Hepper: I had a question on pressurized irrigation system, you said individual lot irrigation (end of tape) Roylance: Regarding that pressurized irrigation system, I don't know that we have made that decision. As I understand it I think the City Ordinance requires we address it in some fashion or another. If we have adequate surface water rights and if they are usable for a central system, that is some times if they are on a rotation schedule it just isn't practical to develop an on site system. If we can do that it would be our preference to provide an on site system, if we cannot do that for the reasons I said or other reasons then we would like to bond for that item. And we really haven't made a decision on that yet. Hepper: And right now as it stands you can pay a fee to the City for a Well development or do pressurized irrigation system, I think they are in the process of changing that, aren't they? Johnson: Yes, that is my understanding that they are. Hepper: But, at this moment it hasn't changed. Roylance: I think it might be the City's preference to get these facilities and I think that would be ours, if things work out and if they don't work our we will have to bond for them. Johnson: Okay, well thank you very much. City Engineer Smith is there anything you would like to address at this time on this application? You had several comments and I'm just hoping that you got satisfaction. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I haven't had a chance to talk to Dave about my comments. I will need to have each one of Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 16 them addressed and I'm confident that Dave will be in touch with me and we'll get answers to each of my concerns. Johnson: Thank you Gary. Anything from ACRD at this point, Larry Sale? Sale: Do I need to be sworn again? Larry Sale, ACHD, 318 E 37th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Sale: Our recommendation to the City was that the approval of a Preliminary Plat of this project and the next project be deferred until we had completed our review and accepted a traffic study of the area. The question of the annexation is one which you can proceed with if you desire, we again would request that you defer action on the Preliminary plat. The Chairman's question about the number of lots on the single access is a case in point. WE can allow more than 100 units to gain access to the arterial system by one route if it is a collector route, but if that is a collector route than we don't want those lots fronting on it what is shown on the revised layout here tonight. So we anticipate some significant changes to the layout as a result of our findings and I would recommend that you defer action at this time on the Preliminary plats. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Sale? Alidjani: Mr. Sale you are recommending that we defer the timing, do you have a time table for when the study will be done? Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Alidjani, the applicants representative indicated that the traffic study will be submitted we are able to complete our review and submit our request for additional information or changes to that traffic study in about 2 weeks we try to turn them around. We try to turn them around in 10 working days. Usually then they are, as I say in this case I anticipate some changes to the Preliminary Plat so that might cause the applicant some additional delay while his consultant is working on both the corrections to the traffic study assuming there are some and the changes to the preliminary plat. Rountree: Mr. Sale, what is the ACHD's guide on the number of lots to be served by a single access without a collector street? Sale: We allow up to 100 on a local street access, above that obviously that is an arbitrary number above that we require either a collector or 2 local street accesses. We want the consultant for the traffic study to meet with us prior to beginning his effort Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 17 because we want him to look at and we would like him also to meet with the City Engineer so that he has an idea of that amount of land that can be served in this sewer drainage basin because that likely will closely resemble the transportation drainage basin that is the area within this square mile that we would expect to be served off this collector or this access. If it looks like there is an adequate opportunity to access the rest of the square mile with stub street out of this project and other collectors off of either Overland or Locust Grove or other arterials than that pose kinds of things help us answer Mr. Rountree's question a little more. Johnson; Okay, thank you very much Mr. Sale. This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the commission at this time on this application? Yes mam, you need to be sworn as well. Lydia Aguirre, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Aguirre: Commissioners I wanted to present my case and my concerns to you about the subdivision that is going in. First of all on the plat that was proposed, it is incorrect and so if I could show you this I could show you where I am in relationship to this whole subdivision. There is a division here, here is the seller of the property his property is here and there is another residential area of 2 acres in this small plot and I am here, I have 3 acres, so I am technically land locked between this residence and myself. South Locust Grove, I don't extend into South Locust Grove, the small dirt road that leads into my residential property. Alidjani: I'm sorry, how do you get in right now according to this map. Aguirre: There is a small dirt road right here and that is how I get in. Shearer: That is your property? Johnson: It is not an easement, its your property? Aguirre: Yes, I have a concern with the subdivision because I am technically land-locked, I'm not sure what they are proposing. I'm backed up by that subdivision on 2 sides, one side of me where the road is and on the back side. I would like to work with the developer or at least have some more information on what kind of public access I can have and I would like to keep my property so that I'm able to develop it some future date as well. I don't know Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 18 whether that means stubbing a road in towards my area from that development I'm not quite sure how that could work. I just want to make sure the property I have is fronted correctly, aesthically, I'm looking for cedar fences for my font yard, and I also would like to have access to some kind of a stubbing if I do want to develop it at some future date that it is there and accessible. Johnson: Have you had any discussion with the developer or his representative up to now? Aguirre: I have not. Alidjani: I have a question, approximately how many feet of you easement of the road that you own? Aguirre: I think it is about 30 feet, 30 or 31 feet. It is a small dirt road, one lane, and that provides access for me to get onto South Locust road and that is the only access I have to a public road. Alidjani: When you purchased that property, were you happy with that road at the present time? Aguirre: I was, I also purchased this property only 3 months ago with the understanding that there was not going to be any subdividing going on because of the zoning, which is probably a typical comment. The thing I'm concerned about, when I purchased this property, I moved from Boise and the thing I'm concerned about is I moved there for the quality of life the privacy that it provided for me. Zoning this piece of land R-4 concerns me a little bit, I'd like to see the zoning to be if they were 5 acre plats of 10 acre plats that would make me and my neighbors happier. The quality of life out there right now, there is a lot of privacy, wildlife, those are the kinds of things that people are moving out to that area to have, and I just think to be consistent with the planning that is going on, R-4 is a pretty densely populated subdivision for that area. Johnson: Okay, is that all you have to present? Aguirre: Those are my concerns. Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public like to address the commission? Yes sir, please come forward and be sworn. John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 19 Shipley: I'm also one of Lydia's neighbors. I have approximately 5 acres it will be right adjacent to, its right in front of where the canal, the Eight Mile Lateral crosses there. Johnson: Can you picture where that is Commissioners? Thank you Shipley: The McDermot property is directly across the road from me which is the other subdivision. Johnson: Could you point that out please Wayne on the overhead? Shipley: I would also like to work with the subdivider and I realize that more taxes are going to be derived off of one lot than the entire 50 acres that is proposed to be subdivided. I though maybe my piece of property could be an RV storage or something like that and its kid of a situation if there are going to be all these houses and all these people out there that would be an advantage to them to have a place close to home where they could keep their stuff and still not be so far away that they couldn't come and load it up to go camping on the weekends and things like that. I thought that it would be a proper proposal to address right now and I also was a little concerned about future conflicts with kids, dogs, irrigation water. Those are things that occur fairly frequently and the more people you get the more problem there is. I though that the proposal to put in pressurized irrigation was a really good proposal because that settle a lot of those problems right off the bat and when you have people sharing water and times and some people have to get up in the middle of the night to change water and those kind of things it is a regular hassle and people that are moving out there won't know anything about those types of situations. I have lived there for 20 years I really know what I am talking about. I becomes a real hassle and for the next 2 or 3 years I'll continually run cattle and 2 don't want somebody's dogs coming over and chasing them through the fence and what not and obviously I won't be able to shoot them anymore. That is all I have to say.. Johnson: Thank you very much. Wayne would you point out Lydia's property on there for me? Thank you that is where I though it was, the land locked situation. It is only 3 acres so it has to be that area. I didn't ask, are there any questions of the gentleman that came forward to testify? Apparently not, anyone else from the public like to come forward, yes sir same procedure. Clifford Babbitt, 11881 Amity, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Babbitt: I own the property the 6 acres between the 2 parties that were just up here. And I am totally in favor of the subdivision, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 20 I would like to see the drainage ditch fenced through there on both sides for protection of kids and what else. Alidjani: Can you elaborate more about fixed Babbitt: Fenced. One of my concerns is that my water and these other parties drain water runs into the subdivision there. I take it the subdivider will move the drainage pipe up the ditch there so it will drain into the drainage ditch, because right now it drains off of Gene's property there which is part of this subdivision right now, and it needs to move up the ditch so it can drain and that would be the most logical thing to do. And I had one thing about the pressurized water, as he stated it is a terrible problem to get these people up in the middle of the night, they go back to bed they let the water run and flood people, it gets to be a problem. If they do this, if you people do require it the drainage out of my water ditch there and the rest of them there, only waters a small section of this which would be the west side of that drainage ditch and I wouldn't want the water for the whole subdivision coming down my ditch trying to pressurize the whole subdivision because that looks like water comes from another ditch up above and that would take my water time away from me. Of course the other thing like you said we do run cattle in there and they do ball and when you bring new ones in the new ones ball for a little while, and I want it on record that we were there long before the subdivision was. Alidjani: I have a question sir, as you were saying that wish them to fence the ditch, is there any fencing at all around the present ditch? Babbitt: Just for cattle on our property there. Alidjani: And you want him to fence that area Babbitt: Well the 6 foot chain link fence along there, that usually require they have in the past instead of enclosing the ditch. And the other thing I was concerned about is the sewer, the water comes down the side of Locust Grove there and I wanted to make sure the sewer was going to be stubbed out on the ditch bank there going south the property there. That would be right along the ditch bank there the drainage ditch there and would be stubbed out to the end of the property there, because there will be more developments south of that property there will be more on up and I'm sure the work department a\has already got that proposed but I want to make that it is put int he record that it is stubbed out that way. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 21 Johnson: Okay, thank you very much any questions? Anyone else from the public like to come forward, yes sir. Frank Stoppello, 782 Arlington Drive, Eagle, was sworn by the Attorney. Johnson: For the record we have a letter in our packet from Mr. Stoppello. Stoppello: I just wanted to briefly address that letter. I would generally be in favor of this project, I haven't seen the 20 conditions or the plat plan, but the only thing I was concerned about, I kind of have a unique situation and of course everybody says that, my access and I'll just show you my copy of this proposed development, I own the 13 acres running along here, the drainage ditch is my western boundary. My access goes down the canal bank and down this access road. It is quite a long access and one of the problems that will happen as I understand it is Mr. Goldsmith's access will be right on Locust Grove very, very close to my access. I too bought this for tranquility but it is obvious that it is not going to be that and it is property that I too would like to develop. My only request would be that there be stub into my property and some coordination of an access whether we are talking about a 100 units or 200 units and Mr. Goldsmith informed that his second phase, if I'm wrong on this Marty you correct me, proposed a stub into my property around this lot 18, my only request that it be stubbed in as part of the first phase, and obviously I would like to coordinate with ACRD and Marty and making sure that 13 acres doesn't get land locked because of proper access to Locust Grove under ACHD guidelines and rules and regulations. That is all I have. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Stoppello? Thank you Frank I appreciate it. Anyone else from the public? Would you like to offer anything David? Roylance: Several things, we understand the concerns of Ada County Highway District and we don't object to their request. Regarding land locking adjoining properties, I'm not aware of that situation but if the land owners could contact me or our firm and our number is 336-7390, we'll be happy to work with the adjoining property owners and try to remedy any situation that we can. I would hope in doing that, that we are not forced to take unreasonable steps to remedy a situation that we did not create, on the other hand we would be happy to work with the neighborhood and do what we can to be compatible and be a good neighbor. That is it do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 22 Johnson: I don't, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Roylance? Hepper: Will the sewer line be coming up Locust Grove Road or coming up the drain ditch? Roylance: My understanding now it will be coming up Locust Grove Road, is that correct Gary? That is what we are looking at, it may not be the only option that is the one under study right now. Hepper: Even though the drain ditch is lower and you can get enough depth out on Locust Grove to drain on out to Locust Grove? Roylance: We think so, we've been contact with Gary and have some preliminary designs that are currently being reviewed, and the think\g is we don't want to put the sewer in a location that would lock out other properties. Rountree: Would you be open to a (inaudible) as opposed to those people who feel an impact or perceived impact based on your clients action that you or your client take the effort and make the effort to contact those adjoining property owners and try to resolve those issues? Roylance: Well if it all right with this commission and you I would prefer they contact us. The point being I don't know exactly what their issues, they do. If it is put on me I might contact 2 people not talk to the 3rd and not know what the issues,they stated the issues, we are in the phone book we are easy to find if they have a concern I would encourage them to contact me. I think we could do a better job by working with the neighborhood if they contact us. Johnson: One of the concerns that comes up David, and I'm sure you're aware of it, when we have public hearings like this the public not being skilled in planning and development it does require not require but in their minds they suggest, demand that they be contacted when some development is going on. So we have as a body endorsed the developer to extend as much as he can in that direction so that we are kind of cutting off the path maybe some complaints we have in the future, and I believe we addressed that in the Comp Plan, have we Wayne? Forrey: Yes we have Johnson: That is a series of input sessions and of course the number of hearings like this we get that all the time. We need to do a better job as developers and as a City in letting the public Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 23 know what is going on primarily because they are naive in that area which understandably is so. Roylance: In light of that I will do that. Those 2 people I heard tonight, well I guess there was 3 i could get that from them tonight you will have that. How do I make sure I don't inadvertently leave somebody out? Johnson: And I don't think anyone expects you to dot every I and cross every T with respect to that but I think just making the offer and making yourself available and how to get in touch with you is all you can do. If I were the developer maybe I'd go around adjoining property owners and talk to them about the development, I don't know how feasible that is I'm not a developer but that is something the public would like. Roylance: Okay Johnson: That is why I'm making this speech. Larry did you have anything you wanted to add to Mr. Stoppello's comments at this point? Sale: Do I have to be sworn? Sale: Mr. Chairman I've talked to Mr. Stoppello on the phone and assured him that if he will contact us which he has we will consider his request to provide access. We try to do that in all locations to make sure all parcels have adequate access. I guess did that answer your question? Johnson: Yes, I appreciate your comment. Alidjani: Larry, can I ask you a question please? How close those entrances can be? The concern the woman had was their entrance or exit the easement to Locust Grove would be quite close distance wise to this subdivision. Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Alidjani, we prefer a separation, it kinds of depends on the level of activity of each entrance we prefer a separation of 125 to 150 feet as a minimum along a major street. That would emphasize our desire to make sure there was another access provided to these properties so that they could give up their driveways on Locust Grove. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Your up. Marty Goldsmith, 4550 W State St, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 24 Goldsmith: In regards to Mr. Stoppello's questions, I had not intended on stubbing out a street until later in the plans and it was right where he indicated, but it was not planned on being done right away. Johnson: Was it in phase 1? Goldsmith: Yes, we had worked with him on the location there. And the distance is over 200 feet it is more like 250 or longer toward these guys recorded easements, Mr. Stoppello has a recorded easement as well as Lydia they are talking about there so the distance between those streets is greater than required by ACRD. Johnson: 250 feet approximately? Goldsmith: More than. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Marty, is there anyone else? If not then I will close the public hearing. Aguirre: I do have a question on the 250 feet, I didn't realize it was 250 feet, I thought it was less. Johnson: Would you like to answer her question? Sale: I'm sure I can, I think she is asking about the existing situation. Johnson: Your talking, is it really 250 feet, is that your question, oh I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the requirement. You want to know what the actual distance is, is that your question. I don't think anybody can answer that here except maybe Mr. Goldsmith, we certainly can't answer that. Goldsmith: The entrance in question is here and your easement is down here, and this distance along the back line of Mr. Babbitt's property is 200 and then we would need to take into account the 20 foot berm and that 30 foot easement. There is 30 feet that has been recorded in here. Anyway this 20 foot berm and this 200 and whether you came from the center of this road or exactly where that measurement is picked up. I do believe it is 200 and something and not 250. Your road is right here correct? Okay, there is nothing there taking your road is there? Aguirre: But if you go 250 feet it would go down further to my road, your 200 on Babbitt's property line and then the additional would come down south of that wouldn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 25 Goldsmith: I guess the only measurement I'm sure of is this 200 and it would actually matter whether you took into account this berm here and whether you started from the center of this street or not. So those are the only 3 measurements I have at this time. Johnson: Okay, I did close the public hearing did I not? Crookston: Yes Johnson: What is your pleasure? Whatever we do we need to bear i mind Mr. Sale's comments regarding the traffic study and address the annexation. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this project. Alidjani: Second Johnson: it has been moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor? opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UPLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION BY GOLDSMITH CHARTER: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is a representative of the applicant of the applicant like to come forward at this time, you need to be sworn. Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Roylance: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, you have probably heard this pitch before but here we go again. This is a residential development containing 77 lots. We propose central sewer, central water and other standard utilities. All streets will meet the requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian and be dedicated to the public. May I answer your questions? Johnson: Questions for Mr. Roylance? Shearer: Is this Comp Plan, this subdivision plan here is no longer valid is it? Roylance: That is correct, we have some preliminary discussions Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 26 with ACHD before we design these but they are preliminary and we don't fault us or ACHD for realizing now that these needed (inaudible) and as soon as we heard that we started the process of amending it. I apologize if that causes you confusion, the one we have here again is different than the one you have. Shearer: Okay, so you're saying that Trumpeter Drive Roylance: We moved the location of this to accommodate the request of ACHD. I realize that isn't the one you have in your packet, and I apologize for that. Shearer: So this lot ends with the other subdivision. Roylance: Once again the traffic study and the impacts will have to be evaluated by ACRD. Alidjani: Any problems with Gary's comments? Roylance: No, no problem with any of those. Johnson: Would you address 10 for the record? Roylance: Yes, item #10 says why isn't the total parcel being proposed for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat at this time? What does the street alignment look like for the unplatted area? And the answer to that is the same, this is a phased development, and the purchase agreement is in 2 phases and we are requesting annexation and preliminary plat approval on the phase that Mr. Goldsmith has agreed to purchase. On the other hand we do have a concept plan and a layout for the entire project and we would be happy to share that with Gary and share that with you, but that is the reason that we have shown just phase 1 of our project. Hepper: Does any of this project back up to Meridian Greens? Roylance: Yes it does. Right here is the point we catch. Hepper: Oh, its just point to point not a whole property line. Roylance: That is right, its this point here. Johnson: Mr. Roylance, i need to point out that in our requirement for a preliminary plat we do require a map of the entire area scheduled for development, if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development. So when you have different phases your are supposed to bring to us a map Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 27 showing how everything interlocks and what the development is and that has been missing with our applications we've had so its something we need to make a point of requiring that when we know that there is some contiguous development that is anticipated. Roylance: Okay, I apologize for that, I was aware of the requirement to identify contiguous parcels you own but probably within my own lack of studying the Ordinance I wasn't aware that we need to show a concept for the entire parcel. And I will do that on future submittals and we do have that information and I will get it to you right away. Johnson: Any further questions of Mr. Roylance, Wayne do you have your hand up, Wayne Crookston? Crookston: Yes, Dave could you go to the map on the screen there and just point out the Sagehen and Upland Meadows where each of them are and how they connect? Roylance: This is Locust Grove, this right here is Sagehen this area here and Upland Meadows which is over here. I think this is for a public park, this is a City map so I'm a little bit disoriented. Crookston: So your contiguousness is through a corner of Meridian Greens Subdivision? Roylance: This is the corner right here. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Roylance? Hepper: I've got a couple of the same questions as before we need to address the 80 foot frontage on these lots I assume the new plat that you have does that. Roylance: Yes it does Hepper: How about landscaping and fencing along Locust Grove? Roylance: We show individual lot that fronts along Locust Grove that will be in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 feet wide and we propose a berm and landscaping along this lot and that will be owned i common by the homeowners association and maintained by them. Alidjani: No fence? Roylance: I don't think we propose a fence at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 28 Hepper: That is all I have. Johnson: Okay, thank you anyone else from the Commission? Thank you David. This is a public hearing anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application? Do you have a question sir? I'll close the public hearing at this time then. What would the Commission like to do? Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this project. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved by Commissioner Shearer and second by Commissioner Alidjani to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions Law, all in Favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM E-4 TO R-15 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT AND VERNA CHRISTENSEN AND BRIGGS ENGINEERING: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, if there is someone representing the applicant or the applicant would like to come forward at this time please do so. Okay, I need to have you be seated or leave the rom please. Go ahead. Van Els, 2408 Squire Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Van Els: I'm here to represent Bob Christensen on behalf of Briggs Engineering and presenting to you Scottsdale Estates Subdivision. I might indicate several points on this subdivision, I don't know if you can see that any better. This proposed subdivision will comply with all the requirements for public street construction and curb/gutter/sidewalk. The proposed use complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the(end of tape) sections of the Comprehensive Plan have been discussed in the rezone application. The subdivision will be served by Central Water and Sewer facilities. This rezone request is for an R-4 to an R-15 zoning, while that sounds a little severe, let me explain what the applicants intent is here. R-15 zoning allows for 15 dwelling units per acre, the intent is to provide a facility or individual lots, single family dwellings, zero lot line type development again where retired or elderly individuals or those interested in smaller lots can purchase lots that are easy to maintain. The lots are considerably smaller, however the density of this project is only 4.6 dwelling units per acre. There will 27 lots, let me point out Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 29 to help you understand how the zero lot line development will, how we anticipate it might occur. With the zero lot line we intend on placing a down home type of patio homes I guess is actually the technical term for it, on lots in neighborhood here perhaps here or here. There will be some individual lots that will have to be maintained and only serve as single family dwelling lots, they will have to meet all the required set back requirements. The same situation will occur down this area here, there may be a shared common line amongst the dwellings. One of the reasons for the R-15 zone change request is that the R-15 zone allows for 2400 square foot lots and the majority of these lots are in the neighborhood of 5000 square feet which I believe is considerably larger than the minimum requirement of the zone. In the R-4 zone the minimum lot size requirement is 8000 and in the R-8 zone its 6500 square feet for single lot dwellings. So as you can see the applicants request for 4500 if you could place a building on those you could see they would be very small lots but with not a significant amount of landscaped area that has to be maintained by those who would be interested in these lots. Also, I will point out that the secondary access will be provided from 7th street there will be a connection along to 7th Street along the southern boundary. Seventh Avenue. This is the Franklin Square apartments here and that connection will be made to SW 7th for secondary access. With respect to irrigation there will be no interruption or disruption of the irrigation systems in the area and those items will be addressed by Briggs Engineers. Are there any questions? Shearer: What is the intention with the large lot on Franklin Road, block 2 lot 1, it is 3500+ square feet, it has an existing dwelling on it? Van Els: At this point the owner is maintaining that as a rental lot I believe. It is his anticipation to maintain that, I realize that the Highway District indicated that it was their feeling it might develop as a commercial site eventually but again that would have to be brought before this body. This is a, at this point it will remain as a single family dwelling lot. I'm not aware of any intentions to do otherwise with it. Hepper: Will these patio homes have a 2 car garage? Van Els: Yes they will. We do have a variance application, here again we get into the same situation as we did on the King Street Station where we are going to be required to obtain a variance since they are single family dwellings that will be sold we will have to obtain that variance to get ultimate approval of this or eventual approval of this application. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 30 Aepper: Will the person that goes in there to buy one lot be required to buy 2 lots so that you can develop the zero lot line buildings, you know where they are contiguous to each other so that they will be compatible? What keeps them from building one type of house that is up to the lot line and some other guy comes in totally different that doesn't even begin to conform to the one that is there? Van Els: I don't know the particulars about that, how that will occur, that is the intent. I suppose there will a considerable amount of coordination that will have to occur there. I don't know the applicants intent, perhaps they will be building spec homes there. Shearer: The intent though is one dwelling unit per one lot? Van Els: That is correct. Again the overall density of this development will be 4.6 dwelling units per acre. Rountree: Are these going to be site built? Van Els: Yes, to the best of my knowledge they will be. The owner's son is in the audience also, he indicated they will be site built. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, thank you we may call you back. Shearer: Could I ask Wayne a question, Forrey? What is the zoning on Franklin Square Subdivision? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shearer Franklin Square is to the east its a four plex project, its R-8. Shearer: R-8 in the town Square? Forrey: And the four plex was approved by the city and developed there those four plex lots. Alidjani: Is it true that as they go further down they get mixed they have duplexes and single family dwellings? Forrey: That is on the west side of this project and is it Crestwood Estates, predominantly single family and some duplex. So this project is right in the middle of four Alex and single family. Johnson: Thanks Wayne, anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? I will close the public hearing at this Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 31 time. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman for the record I have closer than 200 feet to this property i have to abstain my motion.. Johnson: Now you tell us. We won't ask you for a vote. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions prepared on this application for a rezone. Shearer: I'll second Johnson: Never cease to amaze me, we have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all in favor? opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA Johnson: For the record Mr. Alidjani abstains from voting. We are going to break for 4 minutes. Johnson; Lets reconvene. ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE BY LESLIE PALMER: Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing. If there is someone representing the applicant that would like to address the Commission please do so at this time, you need to be sworn. Leslie Palmer, 1524 Meridian Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Palmer: Have you got proposals, does everyone have one? Johnson: We have some material, we don't have a lot of detailed information. Palmer: Okay, what I have is an existing home that we live in now and we have an office attached to our home and we bought a lot in Sportsman pointe we are going to build in Meridian, but what we would like to do is to turn our home into a Day Care Center. They recommended down at Health and Welfare for licensing for my full amount according to my square footage which would be 40 but 30 is what I would like to have as capacity. And just upper quality pre- school age is what I'm shooting for, I don't want infants I want 21/2 to kindergarten age. And we are close enough to the elementary schools we can pick up and take to kindergarten. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 32 Johnson: Okay, any questions of Ms. Palmer? Alidjani: Ms. Palmer are you still going to live there? Palmer: No, it will be just be a day care center. Alidjani: The hours of the work? Palmer: Probably, I haven't totally decided but probably 6 in the morning to 6 in the evening. Shearer: This is in a commercial zone? Palmer: Yes it is zoned CC, there is businesses everywhere. It is getting pretty buisnessy on that end. That is why I don't live there. Rountree: You indicated you would be seeking a permit or what not form Health and Welfare. Palmer: Definitely I will be licensed through the State. Crookston: Do you have your license now? Palmer: No, they recommended going through Planning and Zoning and go the full round before I'm licensed because they will come in and inspect and if there is not a place to inspect then, that is part of you licensing. Johnson: This new garage is under construction is it not? Palmer: It is completed, it is just a shop, we have our backyard completely fenced off, where you can't even see the shop. Alidjani: How tall is the fence? Palmer: 6 foot cedar. Johnson: Have you talked with any of the property owners that you notified in your letters? Palmer: I've talked to several of my neighbors, and a couple have called me. No one seems too concerned about it. In fact some were excited. I had a few curious, just wanting to know what I was doing but nobody seemed to care. Hepper: Is there a business going to be run out of the home other than the day care? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 33 Palmer: Well, there is an office attached to the day care but it will be separate. And really it is just an office, I do book work, I have an occasional builder drop plans off but that is it. We have a built in intercom business and it is pretty much we meet people on the site and I do telephone sales with it. But I have talked to Larry and we have, he has approved it and we talked about what to do as far as parking requirements. We will work with him on whatever he thinks we need to do. We've got 103 feet of frontage, so we have quite a bit of space to work with, and we have a lot of parking in back for staff. Johnson: You talked to Larry, which Larry did you talk to? Palmer: Mr. Sale Johnson: From ACHD? Palmer: Yes Shearer: This will solve some of the problems of putting it in the residential area that we have been having. Johnson: That is for sure, that is why there aren't very many people here tonight. Any other questions of the applicant? Rountree: How many staff individuals would you expect to have? Palmer: Well, whatever the requirements are, I think they changed it 1 to 8 for my age group that I will have. Hepper: How many kids did you say you can have? Palmer: I am going to license for 40 that is what the State recommends, but 30 is all I want, so I will probably have 4 people, no more than 4 would be working at a time any way, that would be the max. Hepper: How many off street parking spaces would you have? Palmer: Well, we are going to have 4, we are going to put in a circular drive and then 4 parking spaces at the end that are completely off the street. So they won't have to back out into the street. And we will still have landscaping our house will still look like a house and it fits real well into the street. Crookston: Will you have kids in the front yard, what is the front yard now? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 34 Palmer: No, all they will do is go from the car to the front of the house and inside. In the backyard is the only place they will be outside. Unless they are with their parent going to the car Hepper: Will you need fencing to separate the play area from the front? Palmer: No, there is a back door and it is completely fenced in in the back. So it is already secure. I have 4 children 5 and under so it is secure, they can't get out no one can. Hepper: Is it locked in some fashion? Palmer: Yes, they have the gate, cedar gate. You have to be tall to unlock it. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Leslie. Mr. Forrey did you have a question or did you want to make a comment? Would you like to wait? Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Now you may come forward Mr. Forrey, I thought maybe somebody else might have a question. Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when I was going through some preparation for tonight meeting, I noticed there were no comments on this Conditional use application form the Highway District. I was thinking in my mind where are my comments, Gary Smith's etc. and I asked one of the secretary's here that processes this particular application and just through an accident neglected to send out a transmittal to the Highway District or myself and Gary Smith. Johnson: All the agencies. Forrey: All the agencies, so there are no comments form any agency or any of the people, we have 30 on the list none of them were contacted. She feels bad about it. Alidjani: So that means no news is good news? Forrey: Not in this case. So she will be taking action in the morning. I just wanted you to be aware of that. Johnson: It certainly is a vital part of our process to have those agency comments. Unfortunately the oversight that we did not get anything on this application Crookston: Excuse me, I just have one question to clarify. The Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 35 property owners were notified though is that correct? Forrey: That is correct and the Valley News, but she was unaware the agencies needed to be notified in a Day Care of this type and she is now aware of it and would never make that mistake. Johnson: That is why we decided it was best to go through with the public hearing because the public had been notified. Crookston: I just wanted to make it clear for the record. Shearer: Meeting all the City Ordinances and the Requirements for this kind of activity should take care of any comments city staff would have. Johnson: Because of the size of the operation they are going to have to meet all of the requirements. Palmer: I have a question, is this a big set back or not? Johnson: No, don't doom and boom yet, we haven't acted on anything yet, we are still gathering information here. But you will be the first to know. Okay, I did close the public hearing, did I not? Crookston: No Johnson: Okay, anyone else from the public on this issue, then I will close the public hearing. Shearer: Can we go ahead with Findings of Fact once the approved going to Findings of Facts and then in doing them after he gets these comments? Johnson: I don't think there is anything prohibiting us from doing that in the Ordinance or Law, it is just that you may want to condition your motion if you have with respect to those comments that are forthcoming. I think we still should solicit the comments. Alidjani: Wayne, how many days you can guess that it is going to take for transmittal and to send out all these 27, 30 copies and get them back? Forrey: Our standing policy is minimum 2 weeks, but we give Larry and others the Highway District that pinches them because they have commission and staff meeting and things but most of the agencies don't have a problem with 2 weeks minimum. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 36 Alidjani: So in essence if you asked at this moment asked for findings of fact and conclusions of law with some conditions that its going to come back within 2 or 3 weeks by the 2nd Tuesday of January when we have our regular meeting we might have something in front of it. Forrey: Yes Alidjani: Counselor, do you have any problem with that? Crookston: I agree with Jim, I think you need to. Shearer: I'll move we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law provided he receives these items in time to do that for the next meeting, if he doesn't receive them in time for the next meeting then we will have to postpone. Johnson: By January 11th, I think that is our only approach. Rountree: I'll second that Palmer: Will I be first on the Agenda? Johnson: No, we draw straws for that. This is a short evening, you should be here when we have long evenings. We have a motion. Rountree: I seconded Johnson: And a second, all in favor of Mr. Shearer's motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea Johnson: At this point no set back. We have one other item on the agenda. Which I'm going to defer at this point. Hepper: If you defer you can't get Sale to testify. Johnson: He is not leaving, we are going to jump back to item #1, and I guess what we need is an explanation, a presentation by someone representing the applicant or City engineer or Wayne Forrey. Well, I think the commission needs to know why we are bringing it back up is what I think. And you know why I agree to do that. Smith: Mr. Chairman, commission members, the preliminary plat of Valeri Heights came before you at your last commission meeting and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 37 after that meeting the applicant, Vicki Welker came and talked to Wayne Forrey and myself concerning primarily my requirement or my recommendation to have a access a street access from her east boundary across the Eight Mile Lateral. And it was her concern that because of the size of her parcel and her desire to create a somewhat private atmosphere for larger higher priced homes, larger lots higher priced homes. That putting the access through her east boundary would eliminate that concept and my main concern with the access was to provide sanitary sewer service to Dr. Coe-Parker's or maybe I've got that backwards Parker-Coe's I don't remember, that was my main concern. Vicki indicated to me and to Wayne at that meeting that was held informally here in our small conference room one afternoon that she would provide a 20 foot wide common lot so that we could extend sewer from her development to Dr. Parker's property. Unbeknownced to me was the condition that you had placed on at your commission meeting that the plat be resubmitted to you. So I related to Vicki at that time that we could probably take care of this adjustment in the final plat process. And so I guess it was with that understanding that she felt she had an answer from the city after talking to Wayne and I that her plat was not revised and was not resubmitted. Johnson: Oh, she talked to the wrong people. Do you have anything to add to that Mr. Forrey? Would you like to verify what he said Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, when you made the motion and were discussing the 1st item I was behind the screen here and I couldn't catch your eye but that whole meeting flashed in my mind for about a half a second and I thought uh-oh I think we told Mrs. Welker or did we and I kept mulling that over and Gary just reminded me that is exactly what happened. I think she left the meeting that Gary and I had with here thinking that she didn't have to bring something formally back to the commission that it would come back to staff and there would be an internal review. And I guess I dropped the ball, because I was at your last commission meeting and Gary wasn't it and I should have remembered. Johnson: Let's stand with the part where you dropped the ball. Shearer: Correction, I think you were both at that meeting. Forrey: Were we? Shearer: Because Gary gave us the advice on the sewer for that location. Rountree: If I understand the rules of (inaudible) that you are just talking about a 20 foot public access for sewer which really Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 38 doesn't require the re-platting and re-drawing of lots and its preliminary plat that we had, actually its been 2 meetings ago if I recall, and our concern last meeting was there was enough changes recommended in the findings of Fact that we wanted to see those changes reflected on a revised plat, and if in fact that is admitted with the sewer easement maybe that addresses our concerns. Is the change for all of those lots sufficient though that were resented originally? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it changes them materially commissioner, I think it moves them, it will move the lot lines slightly to the south and it will carry the lot line adjustment will carry around the culdesac and finish up on probably the first lot west of the culdesac. Rountree: So just to fix those parcels along that culdesac was originally plated. Smith: It appears that the common area for sewer extension will be towards her northeast corner of the subdivision and so form that area to the north of the culdesac and then south around the culdesac to the west those lot lines would change, would move 20 feet approximately. And in one case I think it will help a lot that was on that culdesac just on the northerly edge of that culdesac it will help that because it had a very narrow portion that abutted the culdesac that was really a very unusable portion of the lot. So that lot line can move then to where it intersects the bow of the culdesac rather than just missing the bow of the culdesac and intersecting the street. Forrey: It results in a better layout around the culdesac. Shearer: I was under the impression from our last meeting that not only we had a sewer problem but a kind of an access problem due to the size and shape of that property, is that right? Smith: Dr. Parker's property? Shearer: Or is it Smith: There is a stub street being provided from xaven Cove Subdivision into his property. Shearer: Oh, that is from the south or north. Smith: Correct Shearer: okay, I didn't realize it was a stub street going into it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 39 Smith: Yes, correct Shearer: Then he probably will end up with an access either the south or east and the north. Smith: Right, and I think the property to the east of him is being discussed between the property owner and a prospective developer to purchase and develop. Hepper: Gary, is that a separate lot or is that an easement to the sewer? Smith: It would be a separate lot, it would be a common area lot that the subdivision would maintain. They would maintain it just like that little park area in the middle of the big turn. It would be part of their common area they would have that, the 2 landscape lots out front on Ten Mile road, the small park area and I think there was a little island in the culdesac that was a landscape area too. And I apologize, I really dropped the ball on researching anything about, which won't happen again. Johnson: Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate that. Is there anything you want to add to that or does that pretty well handle it? Welker: No, do I need to sworn in? Crookston: You don't have to be sworn. Welker: I just want to clarify there were 4 issues so that you understand all of them. Number 1 was the sewer issue, and we have agreed to make the 20 foot re-improve it add a 12 foot width with gravel or whatever requirements Gary wants to put on it we agreed to put a manhole by the canal so when they have to bring sewer across the canal the manhole is already there and ready to hook up. We will fence across the canal if we get the variance for that like the Parkside Creek people did, and in so doing if the City of Meridian wants a common area back there like the greenbelt we will provide a gate into the greenbelt improvements, depending on what we end up with. The second issue is the configuration of the culdesac itself, apparently the Fire Department has some problems with the size of the culdesac island that we have created whether or not the truck can get around there, so I agreed with Gary that we will work with him to either reduce the size of it or do it in a different configuration so the Fire Department doesn't have a problem with that. The third issue is the sidewalk around the park, there being none and we've agreed to bring in a landscape Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 40 drawing to the City Council so that they can see there is no need for a sidewalk and the Highway District also so there is no need for the sidewalk on the park area or we will provide the sidewalk if they feel its needed after we bring the drawing in. The fourth issue was the requirement to take the stub street to the south to the Fuller's property and we've agreed with Gary and Wayne that we will go back to the Highway District and work that out with them independently to either do that or eliminate that through the negotiations with the Highway District. And I believe its lot 7 and 8 that were going to run the manhole down between and then we go up to about lot 11 where the lots lines will get reconfigured and we have 2 really large lots on that end which is the south end of the property and the ground will end up being taken out of those so the rest of the lots remain the same size. Johnson: Okay, Vicki thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Rountree: Well, with these changes do we have to go back and look at the conditions in the Findings of Facts or will the City, will they look at those and revise them accordingly, where are we with that? Johnson: Mr. Crookston, where are we with that? Crookston: Well, I'm not sure that the City Council looks at those but quite frankly they also qo quite heavily on what you recommend. Johnson: Where are we legally, do we have a problem? Crookston: No, you can proceed. Shearer: Did we approve Findings of Facts last time, I think we did didn't we? Johnson: Yes we did. We had quite a bit of discussion on that. Rountree: That was on the rezone, annexation but we made not recommendation on the preliminary plat. Shearer: Yes, we tabled the plat. Rountree: Given the resolve of the issues to end up with the plat that was very close to what was presented I'd make a motion that we recommend to the City Council that they approve the Preliminary Plat with the changes that have been discussed and agreed to by the City Engineer and City Planner. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 41 Hepper: I'll second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to remove Gary Smith and Wayne Forrey off the hook and approve the Preliminary Plat, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Sale: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a favor of the City? Crookston: You don't need to be sworn. Sale: Good, this is favor #1, I realize this is a little extra step but it would help me and I think the applicant immensely if we'd have a letter from the City expressing your approval of the preliminary plat without street connections to adjoining property and expressing your approval of that. Because we frankly had a little heartburn when we reviewed the preliminary plat the first time we were kind of steadfast in asking for a stub street out and I'd like to have your expression of approval without the connection in our file so that it will make it easier for us to approve it the same way you have. Johnson: Tell me how that makes it easier for you. Shearer: You know, I'm back where I was a year ago, I don't know what we are approving again. I mean now didn't we just say a minute ago there is a stub street out of that to the south? Johnson: No Shearer: That is why I wanted a plat that will see what we are looking at, I thought somebody said here just a minute ago that there was going to be a stub street to the south not Parker's we are not going to do that now but we, I was under the impression that we were having one to the south. Johnson: We've had our motion and our approval, go ahead. Welker: I believe when it came up, when the plat came up the first time that the Highway District requested the stub street to the south, Mr. Fuller does not want one because when he develops iris property he has access from Pine and Linder and because of the marketing that Z was trying to do I do not want a stub street out of the subdivision because I'm planning an upper level housing development of only 16 homes and a private park for those 16 residents and if the stub street goes through that eliminates that marketing concept. Now, then when the plat came before you, the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 41 Hepper: I'll second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to remove Gary Smith and Wayne Forrey off the hook and approve the Preliminary Plat, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Sale: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a favor of the City? Crookston: You don't need to be sworn. Sale: Good, this is favor #1, I realize this is a little extra step but it would help me and I think the applicant immensely if we'd have a letter from the City expressing your approval of the preliminary plat without street connections to adjoining property and expressing your approval of that. Because we frankly had a little heartburn when we reviewed the preliminary plat the first time we were kind of steadfast in asking for a stub street out and I'd like to have your expression of approval without the connection in our file so that it will make it easier for us to approve it the same way you have. Johnson: Tell me how that makes it easier for you. Shearer: You know, I'm back where I was a year ago, I don't know what we are approving again. I mean now didn't we just say a minute ago there is a stub street out of that to the south? Johnson: No Shearer: That is why I wanted a plat that will see what we are looking at, I thought somebody said here just a minute ago that there was going to be a stub street to the south not Parker's we are not going to do that now but we, I was under the impression that we were having one to the south. Johnson: We've had our motion and our approval, go ahead. Welker: I believe when it came up, when the plat came up the first time that the Highway District requested the stub street to the south, Mr. Fuller does not want one because when he develops his property he has access from Pine and Linder and because of the marketing that I was trying to do I do not want a stub street out of the subdivision because I'm planning an upper level housing development of only 16 homes and a private park for those 16 residents and if the stub street goes through that eliminates that marketing concept. Now, then when the plat came before you, the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 42 Highway District had that requirement, and then Gary decided well instead, I believe this was his thinking,that instead of doing that he would require one going to the east instead because he wanted to cover the sewer easement, but Mr. Parker had only requested a sewer easement not a road. So I came back and said okay Gary I can provide you an easement without a road and then I want to work to eliminate the one to the south because Mr. Fuller and I neither one of us want that one for all those reasons. Shearer: Well, I can't say I'm happy about it, its not your fault necessarily, but we ought to have a plat of what we are approving. And obviously the way this has been bounced around I don't know what we are approving. And I'm a little bit unhappy about it. Welker: What I could suggest is that you approve the Preliminary Plat as presented subject to the 3 requirements that Gary has asked for and subject to my negotiations with the Highway District and if I can't work that out with the Highway District with your approval not to have one then I have to put the stub street to the south. Johnson: Well, that is basically what we have done. Rountree: I think that is what I said. Johnson: Is that the way you recall the motion? Rountree: Yes Johnson: Well, back to Mr. Sale. I don't want to try and read between the lines but are you saying, let me just ask you point blank, are you saying you don't like what we did here and therefore you want a letter? Sale: No, I'm not saying I don't like what you did, I'm saying that I've got being a good bureaucrat I've got all kinds of paper in the file that made certain requirements and I'd like to have another piece of paper from the City saying the project is fine as submitted without stub streets and that gives some additional reason to agree with that other than listening to the applicant state that this is the only project of this kind in the world and they don't want any connection with other projects. Johnson: You want the wishes of the city stated in writing? Rountree: Would that not come with the city's approval of the final plat? Johnson: That was my next question, can we do that at the City Council level Wayne? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 43 Crookston: You can make a recommendation to that effect. Johnson: We already have a motion and we've approved the motion how would we enter that condition at this point? Crookston: Make a new motion to add it as a condition. Johnson: At this point we have done everything but select the person to make the motion. Hepper: well, I have a question why we need a motion, won't the City approve the plat doesn't that then go to ACHD for your final plat approval? Who has approval first. Johnson: But he is not going to get the letter. If we go through the normal process he won't get his letter. Isn't that right, isn't that what we are saying? I mean I understand why he wants the letter now, why ACRD wants the letter. Alidjani: Why can't they do it next meeting when they approve it, really. Sale: Maybe Mr. Forrey or Mr. Smith can write me a nice letter on letterhead to say what you did tonight. Rountree: That is not really approval its a recommendation. All we did is make a recommendation for approval, so they can come back and say no. So a letter at this point in time is of no value. Johnson: Well, it could be a letter of intention. Alidjani: Can't he request at the Council level what Mr. Sale wants? Shearer: How many acres is that property to the south? Welker: I think its about 14 acres Shearer: 14 or 15, is that going to end up with streets that are too close together down through there coming out of one subdivision. Sale: Probably not, I think there is sufficient frontage. Johnson: Well, I don't mean to be short here but what we need to do now is move on and I think Mr. Sweet has been very patient and we need to go to the next item. ITEM #8: PRESENTATION: STEVE SWEET OF W & H PACIFIC, SHORT Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 44 PRESENTATION OF IMPACT FOR PINE AND EXECUTIVE CONNECTION: Johnson: We all have received some comments from Mr. Sweet that I think we very well done and answered a lot of the questions preliminarily here. Does everybody have the Pine and Executive corridor connection presentation and then we will turn the meeting over to Mr. Sweet, who does not need to be sworn. Crookston: Ah, let's swear him anyway. Sweet: Steve Sweet with W & H Pacific we've been working with the Ada County highway District on a corridor study and identifying a parcel of ground to connect Pine Avenue with Executive Drive. Terry Little, the Traffic Services Manager for the Highway District is here Mr. Johnson behind this machine, Larry Sale is here the Development Services Manager for the Highway District. I'd like to step through the typical project questions. I'd like to do a David Letterman top 10 but I will stick to the script here. The project has been identified in the 2000 urban classification for the area and you can see on the drawing we have a blue arrow pointing to the Pine Executive connection its been identified agreed to previously that somewhere in the area we ought to be tying the 2 roads together with a collector status street. For the record I've taken the 2010 plan down and we are now looking at an aerial photo taken in May of this year showing the area in question. Yes Mr. Berg. (End of Tape) The Pine Executive corridor connection lies between Fairview to the north and Franklin to the south, 2 arterials presently in existence. For the record there is a third arterial we also have in the area, Overland coupled with the Interstate. We have plenty of traffic flow east and west and we are looking for a connector to provide access to these 1300 acres roughly these 2 sections by sective. The plans that have endorsed this concept have been the 200 urban classification system map, the one we just had up, the 2010 needs a transportation and needs assessment for Ada County and the Ada County Roads to Rivers plan. The point is that we as a community have been talking about a connector in this area. We looked at 3 different alternatives on that map you see on the top a green line, in the middle there is a line that is red and over the top of it is labeled preferred alternative, and the third line is a yellow line. The green starts at Locust Grove follows the existing sewer and fiberoptics line in the water there part way into this area across the Treasure Valley business Center and goes right along the mid section line once we get east of Eagle Road. The red alternative would be the one that came out to be the preferred alternative and I'll get to how we got to that decision. The preferred alternative came straight across the mid section line and came back on top of the green line. The yellow was, let's frame this as far as it will go Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 45 and as far south as we can keep in mind we have the railroad track, just to let you know we've gone through 8 official hearings or discussions with folks, we've had an informal with Meridian kiwansis where we talked about the project. The yellow line took a lot of heat, nobody liked that. That framed the picture very well. We have, I have a list of meetings I'd like to present to you folks so you have something for the record summarizing the 8 meetings and the attendees. I also have a copy of the study and the sign in list the mailing list that we dealt with in the project. There are comments, so I'd like to leave those with the City Engineer, so you'd have something for the record for Council to review and any public that wants to come in and look you have a copy of comments to date. And for the record I passed out to the City and the study the appendix to the City Engineer. The greatest support by far came from the landowners, that would be directly impacted by the project the public that submitted testimony favoring the project we uniformly in favor of the red route. There was one petition signed by 24 homeowners requesting no activity at all in a connection out there. I'd love to say that they were not living on the Pine Executive corridor, they were off that site. The red route received support from the homeowners, it provides the best spacing for intersections between Fairview and Franklin it provides good safety features when dealing with the railroad tracks out there. The safety features in this project in addition to a corridor and I'm going to show you a section here in a minute, in addition to a corridor we contemplated to attach sidewalks away from curb, striped bike lanes, aligning intersections at arterials to accommodate future traffic signals and safe crossing, we have recommendations for an unsignalized accesses for regulations for safe vehicular movements. I would like to put up a, In your packet there is a typical cross section and for the audience I will describe it, it is 2 traffic lanes in either direction, a center left turn lane, 2 striped bike lanes, a landscape and utility zone outside the curb zone which is also long range corridor preservation and 2 five foot sidewalks on the outside of that. I'm describing a 52 foot paved road way, 2 eleven 1/2 foot landscape utility zone long range corridor preservation zone, 2 five foot sidewalks, continuing with a 90 foot right of way. The extra right of way in this area will provide for the landscaping which will help frame the entry into Meridian. The project was started with the 2000 plan, this study is advancing the project by identifying where in the future a corridor ought to be built when approvals come in. The actual construction will take place when land is developed and the cost will be borne by the developer. In the area of Pine its existing today, from 1st to 6th there is 80 feet of right of way for 6th out to South Locust Grove there is 50 feet of right of way. Our recommendation contemplates meandering the road right of way past existing home sites not taking rights away off of Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 46 exiting single family homes as the traffic is not projected to be that great in the future out there, way out in the future we are looking at 5,000 20 years down the road. Our recommendation is that right of way is not taken from single family homes and as the market conditions bring increasing uses into the vicinity and uses change from single family to commercial the right of way should be acquired. I believe you will be seeing a recommendation from the highway District on land use exchanges out there for an increased right of way. This is Pine Avenue from 1st out to South Locust Grove. Johnson: I've got to ask you a question, your preferred route is red and non-preferred routes is green, how does that happen what kind of thinking is that. Sweet: It was never as good as it should have been, I had three colors available, what is going on in the market place today is you can't buy this zip tape in but these tree colors. Johnson: I really didn't expect an answer. Sweet: And you'll notice the preferred alternative is blue. Johnson: Are we ready for questions? Sweet: Yes sir Johnson: This disadvantage, I'm always interested in the disadvantages here. I can see a straight shot with the research of the traffic study, I don't know anything about that just makes sense it would. Is that the reason with the volume there is no meandering its more of a straight shot through there, tell me as the transportation engineer why that is? Is that the reason, because its straight. Sweet: The idea in dealing with traffic is just like water and with more resistance its going to squirt out a little more. Johnson: The second thing, the potential crossing on the Free Trade Zone a rail spur which is contemplated but is not there now, right? Sweet: That has been approved the rail spur is not there the property is held by Treasure Valley Business. Johnson: I know you have had meetings with those people, is that, what kind of a problem is that. You say it is a potential disadvantage. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 47 Sweet: It is not a big, as we identified that as a concern, and this was something we put to the folks back in August trying to frame the issue in our first public meetings. My understanding is if there is a Free Trade Zone developed there, if this rail spur is developed it would be of minimal use during high traffic times and to tell you the truth they don't know what they have out there. Johnson: I understand, it would be the same problem for any of the 3 routes, whatever is chosen. Sweet: Yes Shearer: I think its great after seeing all these subdivisions to see a road that is actually straight and on the half section line, that is different. Johnson: Would you elaborate for me, again being interested in the negatives, why you had 24 people sign a petition and what their thinking was, the excuses they gave for not wanting any kind of development. Sweet: I can't explain why other than my understanding is that there was one individual who is concerned. I could pull you their petition and the response from the Highway District. Johnson: Well, I guess I'm more interested not in the individuals who they are or any of that, but their thinking, is there anything specific about this place or is just the fact they don't want any traffic through there period. Sweet: The thinking is that Pine/Executive should not be completed. Johnson: The entire project, it doesn't matter which alternative. Is there anything you can add to that, were there any other concerns that you haven't listed here as disadvantages? Sweet: I think that the meetings that we've had have been very thorough in bringing these out. I think one thing that is important for you to understand is that you can't go from a green alignment to a red alignment or a yellow offset at the arterials at Eagle. Because then we start having offset intersections the traffic is stopped for one light backs up into another light or backs up across the railroad tracks. I think from a safety standpoint the yellow is the least desirable of all because of the proximity tot he rail crossing. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 48 Johnson: Where on this map is the Boise City limit? Sweet: I believe the Area of Impact for Meridian Johnson: I know where the Area of Impact is do you know where the city limit is? Sweet: No Johnson: We now where that is because we work with that all the time. Sweet: I don't know, I'd be happy to put a sketch together for you and ship that back. Johnson: No, I just thought maybe you might know. Is the City of Boise involved, obviously you talked to them because its in there. And my next question is obvious, what is their response? Sweet: We have notified Boise City a number of times concerning the project and we have not received comment form Boise City. Johnson: You don't have anything, you haven't had a meeting with them like you are doing with us. Sweet: And I'd like to get the Highway District a pat on the back, we were directed to come and get Meridian's input and work closely with Meridian in this, because this comes to the hear of your community. They were very sensitive to that, that is why we have scheduled this meeting you folks and we are scheduling one with the Council before we go to the Board of Commissioners before the Highway District and make the final recommendation. Johnson: It just seems like such a natural, those of us that live in this area and drive east you know whether you are on Franklin, Fairview, or Overland it doesn't make much difference, it just depends on the time of day. It just seems to me like a natural positive step for this project. Sweet: If I could, Larry do you have anything you'd like to add? Sale: I'd like to ask the Chairman if he could write a letter to speak on Hill road. Crookston: What type of traffic control do you foresee on this road? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 49 Sweet: I think the best traffic control Crookston: In the terms of lights and stop signs, what kind thoroughness are we going to have? Sweet: On the arterials in due time, I'm not even going to answer that I'm going to let the Highway District answer that because I'd be talking about their future policy. Little: We would ultimately anticipate signals at Eagle and at Locust Grove, probably could handle most things everything in between with to a left turn lane until we get a pretty good mid section type of a connection there at, but I really wouldn't anticipate that between Cloverdale and Eagle given the railroad track and the barrier that presents. I think it will function very well into the foreseeable future even beyond the 20 year period with just a signal just at those locations, we could end up with an interim 4 way stop at Locust Grove as a result of this. If I talked about traffic calming, I could update about where the Highway District is on that. Johnson: We are still trying to figure out the definition of traffic calming. Little: What it really means, we just approved a policy at the District, last week or this week, which deals with collector and local streets not with arterials. This is a collector by the way, but we certainly wouldn't envision in this 2 mile section where the new road would be we'd be talking traffic calming. I could envision a no truck sign at Locust Grove to keep trucks headed to Eagle Road and the Freeway that kind of a thing and that relationship. But there is a traffic calming policy that deals with residential streets, it has some general categories we have thresholds based on whether its a collector whether its a local, how wide it is, sidewalks that kind of a thing. We have thresholds for speed, traffic volume and cut through traffic and if it meet the cut through traffic threshold then ACHD is willing to consider full funding and the whole thing, if it doesn't have some cut through traffic but doesn't have a, doesn't make the threshold it needs 25s it is not a big percent, we will provide full support residents are expected to pay the cost of the measures themselves. This is done out in West Bamere if you are familiar with the foothills, Bogus Basin, we did 5 road humps, big long speed bumps and Rountree: Jim we can finally see one, we've talked about them for years. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 50 Johnson: Well, I (inaudible) a hump and a bump. Little: A bump is about between these 2 plats and a hump is about as log as your table here, 3 inches and they are fairly comfortable at 15 - 20 miles per hour they shake your teeth at about 30. We do have some longer ones for collector streets which we are planning to try which they use in Portland which are 22 feet long. We are going to use those on Gillis off of Gary Lane, but our third category is where they pay for the whole thing in an enclosed subdivision and then they are creating their own problem and they pay for the whole thing. We are having a major meeting in the Randolph Robertson area, you may have heard of Borah High School, and they problems we've had for 3 years trying to resolve that. We are having a meeting Thursday on that with a very Draconian traffic calming plan that Pat Doby has developed for us to try and resolve the high schools just cut through that it is like a freeway on ramp. Borah Drive in the morning is busier than any half of the day ont he Orchard on ramp, I mean it is solid cars. Johnson: Well, that is where you are doing some temporary blockading. Little: Yes, we tried closer last year but it wasn't very popular, we had a very heated meeting over that a very well attending meting the biggest one we have ever had until bench valley and the hill road meeting at least. We are trying something new out there but that is something, we've talked to the Sandalwood folk on that, they were interested in taking a collection for that. There is one developer that owns the subdivision between Linder and Cherry in the northwest corner that lives on Sandalwood I think he talked to me about paying for some traffic calming measures. We are looking into that, but we are involved with the Fire Department, some of these closures can be really a problem for them. We got a letter back this week, in one case they said we can't live with it, in another they said we can live with the closure, you put right mid house block, you have a 2 house block, this is hear HP and Five Mile Road, but that is where that stands. Part of that policy involves developer funded traffic calming measures and its where we're directly impacting a development, you know they are dumping right into a street and we envisioned it as a problem and about the 3 or 4 cases we've had thus far we've kind of negotiated and they have been very willing to do it its very popular with the neighborhood to existing neighborhoods very inexpensive relative to development and maybe sometimes gives a few more lots. I could envision this on a pintail type of situation or something like that where there is a tough spot to get more collector access, an interim measure a few more houses they do get bumps they stay in forever and we eventually get the collector access, that kind of thing could really Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 51 help us. We've had them approved for the Gilis extension down off Gary Lane, Old town, Ustick, Wildwood, there is one off Five Mile and Overland that have been approved I don't know that any of them have gone in yet sometimes it takes awhile. We will get out a laymans version of this thing and ship it out here to you to make it understandable its pretty complicated in the way its written up right now. Johnson: What about your time table? Little: For traffic calming? Johnson: No, how far along are you on this? Little: We are ready to have it approved by our commission and begin implementation which is just corner preservation right now it is just dealing with existing subdivisions and how they would connect into it and we have the one on the corner of Eagle and Fairview the southeast corner. Johnson: You've had several meetings with Tom Wright? Little: Yes, we are scheduled before City Council next week and then the next thing, I think the next milestone is ACRD Commission, we feel like we've got the homework done and its ready to implement. Rountree: Terry if I understood Steve correctly this would be financed and potentially corridor preserved through the State Land Use Planning Act by identifying it on the preservation within the City of Meridian, but it will be developer paid for. Little: Well we are really qualified, pretty much impact fee, Larry could address that. Rountree: Will that need to be developed with impact fees or a combination? Sale: It will be, the first step will be to acquire the right of way as development occurs along it and we will pay for that right of way using impact fee revenue collected in that zone. If we deem at that time that the streets should be constructed we will pay for any construction over and above what the developer might require to serve its basic needs, we would make that payment again with impact fee revenue. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 52 Rountree: What are we looking at cost wise in implementation based on development or are do you have some kind of a time line you'd like to see this implemented. Sweet: The fundamental assumption is it would be based upon development. And we are looking somewhere around the order of a million to million and a half bucks. Rountree: Construction Sweet: Yes Johnson: Mr. Forrey Forrey: (Inaudible) Sweet: Yes sir Rountree: Any controlled access? Sweet: We have recommendations for limiting the commercial access we also as a subdivision abuts the corridor there will be designated access points there will not be direct lot access. Gentleman, thank you for your time i appreciate it. Johnson: Thank you, do you have any questions? If not then I'll entertain a motion. Rountree: I have one question, I'm seeking an answer from you, you gave us this package of information on landscape ordinances, do you have in mind when we are going to get together and talk about that. Johnson: One thing we are not going to do is plan a meeting after our regular meeting. No, I, because of my own selfishness I would like to wait until after the first of the year. I have a very tight agenda and to do justice I would like to have a workshop or a meeting after the first of the year, but I haven't forgot about it if that was your question. Shearer: Sometime after the first meeting. Johnson: We need a motion Rountree: I'll move we adjourn Hepper: I'll second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 14, 1993 Page 53 MOTION CARRIED: All yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK C~ JIM OHN N, CH RMAN a~~,l~ i 1 ~-~~0~~~ ~- 20-~ ~~~~` ~ ~ ~ 1593 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FARWEST DEVELOPERS ANNEXATION AND ZONING N 1/2 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 20, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on December 14, 1993, 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 Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a representative, David Roylance, and in person 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 December 14, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 14, 1993, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 24.17 acres in size; it is in the North 1/2 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the property be zoned R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that much of the residential property to the west is zoned R-4 Residential but is developed at less density than allowed in the R-4 zone. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the owners of record, Gene A. Babbitt and Freda L Babbitt, have requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the 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 applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for single family dwellings; Applicant's representative stated at the hearing that a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 traffic study would be completed, there would be a landscaping berm along Locust Grove Road, there would be a perimeter fence, that Nine Mile Drain would be fenced, that the comments of the City Engineer would be met, and that there still was a question about pressurized irrigation. 10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 11. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, the Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 13. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 14. That the Applicant submitted an application for preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and zoning which application included a preliminary plat. 15. That the land is across Locust Grove Road from that subdivision now in process of annexation and zoning known as Upland Meadows. 16. 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." 17. 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 . .' 18. 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." 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population, FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 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, apartments, condominiums." "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." 20. 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. 21. Meridian Police Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, and submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian City Engineer and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 22. That the City Engineer previously submitted comment in a different application that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; he likewise commented for this Application that a determination of ground water level should be made. 23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Plan indicates an elementary school site is needed west of this FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 subdivision near the center of Section 19 and that there may also be a need for an elementary school site near the center of Section 20; that as a condition of annexation, a development agreement will be required which will include an in-depth analysis by the Meridian School district and the Meridian Planning Director to determine the amount of land set aside in the northeast corner of this project for a future elementary school/park site. The Planning Director also stated that the preliminary plat needs to provide a stub street to access the undeveloped property on the north and south sides of this subdivision to provide access for future school and park needs; he also stated that this annexation request should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and described in a development agreement. 24. 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: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of 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) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian." 25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 26. 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. 27. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. 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." 29. 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." 30. That Section 11-9-605 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;" 31. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 ~i natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 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." 32. 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. 33. That there was testimony from Lidia Aguirre, John Shipley, Clifford Babbitt, and Frank Stoppello, adjacent property owners; Miss Aguirre desired less density, did not want to be landlocked and desired a stub road into her property; Mr Shipley was concerned about his cattle and children bothering them but he wanted to work with the Applicant; Mr. Babbitt desired that the drainage be fenced and desired pressurized irrigation and stated that he has cattle and wanted protection for them; Mr Stoppello stated he desired access and a stub road as part of the first phase of this development. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 • CONCLUSIONS C~ 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property.. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning 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 annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant, and titled owners, must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development. 11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, including the traffic study, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that if Nine Mile Drain is not tiled, it must be landscaped and improved as an aesthetic betterment for the subdivision to be constructed on the area to be annexed. 14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; 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 require#d 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey; 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 impact, development, 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. 15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district shall apply. 16. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that access to and for • FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 the adjacent property owners will have to be worked out and included in the development agreement, or the property will not be annexed or, if annexed, it will be de-annexed. 17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. ~~ 19. That if these conditions of approval are et et 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 SHEARER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) ,/~ l~ VOTED,"y," VOTED ~ ~ VOTED "~ VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 DECISION AND RECONMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoninq Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the 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 owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 ~ ~ OR~,~ ~~~~~,~L BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FARWEST DEVELOPERS ANNSRATION AND ZONING NE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on December 14, 1993, 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 Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through a representative, David Roylance, and in person 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 December 14, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 14, 1993, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 • annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 26.25 acres in size; it is in the Northeast 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range I East, Ada County, Idaho. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the property be zoned R-4 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is zoned R-4 Residential but is developed at less density than allowed in the R-4 zone. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the owner of record, J. G. McDermott, has requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the 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 applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for single family dwellings. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 11. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, the Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 13. 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. 14. That the Applicant submitted an application for preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 zoning which application included a preliminary plat. 15. That the land abuts Meridian Greens Subdivision; that in another request for annexation of land abutting Meridian Greens Subdivision the City required that all houses adjacent to Meridian Greens Subdivision would have at least 1,500 square feet in size and that the house values would not be less than $100,000.00 to $150,000.00. 16. 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." 17. 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 . 18. 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." 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums." "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." 20. 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. 21. Meridian Police Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, and submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian City Engineer and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 22. That the City Engineer previously submitted comment in a different application that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; he likewise commented for this Application that a determination of ground water level should be made. 23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the R-4 request complied with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Plan indicates an elementary school site is needed west of this subdivision near the center of section 19; that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area; he also commented that the plat needs a 10 foot wide pedestrian easement to the west and to the north to access the future school and park site shown on the comprehensive Plan. The Planning Director further commented that this annexation 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. 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: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of 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) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian." 25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 26. 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: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 "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. 27. 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 in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. 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; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 29. 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." 30. That Section 11-9-605 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;" 31. 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; 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." FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 32. 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 Desicxn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 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 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 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 annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That this Application has been submitted prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that as a condition of annexation the Applicant, and titled owners, must agree that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan shall apply to the land and any development. 11. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, including the traffic study, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; 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 require#d 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey; 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 impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 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. 15. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district shall apply, but those houses within 500 feet of the boundaries of meridian Greens subdivision shall have at least 1,500 square feet and be constructed at a value of not less than $100,000.00 to $150,000.00. 16. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 19. That if these conditions of approval are net 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 ~~~ A/ COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED C COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 • COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED I ~~i(~~~~~~ppppy--~-'~- COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning 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 owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT S OF LAW DISAPPROVED: Page 13 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL RODNEY BRADY & TERRELL TINGEY VARIANCE APPLICATION 1114 AND 1104 WEST CHERRY AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 21, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing, the City Council brought the matter on for consideration of the January 4, meeting but .the Applicant had requested that it be tabled until January 18, 1993, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the Variance Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 21, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 21, 1993, 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; that a hearing on the matter was scheduled, noticed and held on December FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 i • 21, 1993. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicants are the owners of the property which is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 4. That the Applicant is the property owner and the property is zoned Limited Office. 5. That Ordinance 11-2-410 A, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and Coverage Controls, requires, in the Limited Office Zone, that the Minimum Yard Setback Requirement is twenty (20) feet. 6. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a variance from the above yard setback requirement to build and locate a garage 5 feet from the rear (North) property line; the Applicant stated that the garage would face 11th street and would be constructed out of metal; the Applicant's office building is not metal but is wood and brick. 7. That the proposed dimensions of the garage are 30' by 36' and the garage would be located in the northeast corner of property to maximize the parking space. 8. There was testimony offered stating objections to construction of a metal garage. Guy Walker stated: "Not in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 harmony with the rest of the area", "No rear space between garage and adjacent property", "Property values will decline", "Concerned about the composition of building". "The planned use and development of the remaining property does provide the owner special privileges that the rest of the surrounding property owners do not enjoy." "The proposed metal structure is not in harmony with the existing office building or existing residential homes or day care surrounding it or with the existing zoning which is limited office use." Robert Dunn lives next door and stated that he did not want a garage next to him and had the same position as Guy Walker. Allan Walters states that he concurred with Guy Walker and was concerned about the composition of the garage. 9. All those objecting agreed that the they'd like to see the development of this property and the removal of the unsightly dirt piles and weeds and potential fire hazard it now creates. 10. That the property where the garage would be located is not well kept and is in need of maintenance. 11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that there were some irrigation inlet structures near the northeast corner of this parcel; that the structure needs to be located with respect to his parcel's; north and east boundary lines to be sure there is access for maintenance purposes. He also stated that paving, landscaping, lighting and fencing are prescribed by Ordinance 11- 2-414 (D). Surface drainage from the paved area needs to be retained and disposed of on-site pursuant to Ordinance 11-2-414 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 (D) 2. d. 12. The Meridian Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that the variance could be approved subject to the neighbors and Applicant meeting and submitting a revised site development plan showing construction and siting details; that a review of similar buildings next to residential properties in the Old Town district indicates that a 7 to 10 foot setback is workable for residences and businesses. 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 of the requested variance to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Planning and Zoning Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612 A. 1., of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the Application: 11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit development), may grant variances from the provisions of this Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of the Ordinance or that application of such provision or requirement is impracticable. 6. That if a garage, parking, landscaping and lighting were installed, it would be a significant improvement to the property and the area. 7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That the strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other such conditions which are not self- inflicted, or that these conditions would result in inhibiting the achievement of the objectives of this Ordinance; c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 property in the area in which the property is situated; d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho Code; and e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant; however, the improvement to the property that would come with having a garage constructed on the property would be great. 9. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2. it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the Limited Office (L-O) street frontage Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the street frontage Ordinance would not result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted. c. That the granting of a variance would not necessarily be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated because the property would be cleaned up. d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the set back requirement cf the Ordinance because their is normally only a five foot per story set back in residential neighborhoods which the Applicant's proposed garage would be next to. 10. That it is concluded that granting the variance, which would grant the Applicant a special privilege, must be weighed against the benefit of having the property improved which would benefit the neighbors and the community. 11. That it is specifically concluded that most of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 objection to the garage was the type of construction, a metal building; that if the construction type is changed it is likely that the objections would not be there. 12. Therefore, it is hereby concluded that if the Applicants are willing to design and construct the garage in the same fashion as their office building using the same materials, and not metal, the variance should be granted; that if Applicants are willing to enter into a development agreement which will set forth the design and materials to be used the variance should be granted and would be in the best interest of the City and neighbors. 13. The City has in the past granted similar variances as requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances; each application must stand on its own merits and the granting of one variance is not a precedent for granting others. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED VOTED_ ~~a~ VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 That it is decided the variance of the 20 foot set back requirement to a 5 foot setback is hereby granted if, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicants enter into a development agreement which sets forth the design and materials to be used and all of the paving, landscaping, lighting, and fencing; additionally the Applicants must take measures to protect the irrigation facilities that are located on the property. APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF 'r'ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 ~ ` R ~,` ii4~; City Counr_il of Meridian Dear Ccunci.l. Members, January 24, 1994 My wife, Terri, and I are residents of the Chateau Subdivision (.':g38 E. Green Meadow Ct.) in Meridian and wish to inform you of our first hand knowledge of. the developer. of the 40 acre parcel at the cornar of Locust Grove end Fairview. We have witnessed the growth of tt,e main company, St or-:it Rental Storages, represented by Avast Limited Partners, from 1487 to the present. The Managers of 5tor-It facilities are very accommodating, friendly, and professional. We have stored at their location on Maple Grove in Poise. Their facilities, are well-kept and the maintenance and landscaping is very pleasing and above average i. r, t.}ie amount of grass and plants and tree.=: for typir.al .~rnraq,z facilities. We ;cnnw that now days any commerci.a.l development comes up acrainst. much scrutiny from neighbors and realize that motet. of the comments you receive will be from those that would rather not trave their existing neighborhood c_.henge. Even though Terri. and I wall have a neighbor (if this proiec+t. is approved) where we now have an alfalfa field, we Y,new development of this large piece of ground was inevitable when we bought our home in Chateau. Reali=tically we knew that ti,is 40 acres wcvld prc,bab.ly not. he residential with the commercially develc,ped Fairview Ave. bordering the South boundary of tho property. It is my ur,cferstanding that the developers are asking for a zone change which would allow multiple-use dev+=lvpment of this land. A planned community shopping area with proper attention to the ner~rte of the 1,onres directly adja,_•.er,t to t..he development--and the trane;itional land s,.,.rround.ir,g it, will be good for the Meridian economy, I support the neces^ary coning to accomplish ihi~ goal and have c.r.nfidence that. the owner-s of t.hic? property w1.11 wort, with all the neighbors to assure the continued peace and privacy of our Femi-rural area. Since y, `~ Greg Pu.r art . M.., ,. i 5., a I (_ ,. 1/11/'34: FUBLIt~ HEARIFIG I'C:L:LENTA"1'IUN C~'t KATHLEEN WEBER, GENERAL PARTNER ANC RGFRE'~ENTATSVE POE2 AVE'~"F, LT[?. MP.. CHAIRMAN, r!~MMI`'C~ZGN NE:MDG;f=G, AFII'+ I1R. FhRRE't, I WOULD LIY.E Tf? GIVE SOME EACKGROUND .TNFORMA?'i0N ABDU? AVFiST AND CiHARE Oh1E SPEGI!'It;5 CiJNGERNI:NG THG: APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THEN, ROGGk ALLEN W+'JLILC LF.h:E TO D.LSCUSS SOME MAJOR T`SGUE3 TG gi ( 'f'~vI '"t SLC~ i i"p' 'r t ~,.i.;;' +~"t~t~?MMF:NI?A'CTOFI "0 CIT'i COUNCIL.. TIIF. APPROGAL PFiGCESt+ WAS L?EGUFJ CsN '[U'I'_i: i[C1 A~'tE PAF?CEL A YF:A12 A11P A HALF AGO WHL.N MR. :IACI{ NIEMAN WAS THE C~ITS' F'LAtNER FttR MLkIDIAN. S1NGE T}IE CITY GF MERIDIAN WAS' FLANFJING ;'0 REVISE ll!EIR COMPREHENSIVE FLAN fiATNFI2 TIiA}! AMEND 'FHE OLL% COME` I'LA}J, JACY. SUGGESTED THAT WE WAIT... SO, WL AG12EF:U TO POSTPONE T RESEN'C1NG OUR PROJECT UN'i 1L 'F}IL NEW P1_.AN WAS, AhOS'TEU. IN JUNE, 1993, A MDRATGRIUh! WAS F'LACEG UN RU:ILL%i}JG IN MERIDIAN... `_:~i, WE WAITED SOME MORG. IFl NOVEMUGR OF 193, WIIEP7 TNl~ PRGJECT CO'_ILD FINALLY E F'RFSENFED, 711 F. MERIDIAN CUIINCIL FOUND IT HAD A IF;W MORE COMPREHENSIVE FLAN L'E7AIL.S TG WORK GUT IN RLGAkD TO TALKS WITH 'f}IE C:rp.iN'I'y CUPIMISSIONERS. THIS PROCESS HAS REEK GOOD FOR MERIDIAN ... S0, AVEST HAS BEEFI PATIENTLY WAITIFIG. WE AF2F. VF_RY HO}'EFUL THAT NGW, WE CAFJ FINALLY_ I'kGCEED WI'CH GUR PRt)„?EC'f. •*.[ AM REALLY ANX.LUUS APGUT T11E F kGSCFY:'1'S GF' FINALLY kC.IF1G AF+LE TO GO PGRWARD WI"IH 1'HI:~ FfLSEN'FA'f IGN. t'F1LN.... , I RECEIVED T[IE AGENDA F012 T iiI~ MEG"PING AND_Ps;1UF~[! WL;, WERE " L.At3T" GN THL. AC'iENDA, .[ DECIGE[I 'CHAT 4( M~.C1NE MUST ~IlI1:Nli 1. 1 'I+LLe NEED A GGCJD L!'-~~ON IN PA'i'IEIJCL '1f:1 ...I"M T`RYING!! WE WANT 'CU HE SURE THAT WHA`f WE IiAVIi HEFVRE YOU `IUNSGHT 15 CLEARLY UNUEA.STOOD. AVEST' HA3 TWO AF'F'LIC'ATIUNS PCJR YOU TCI CGN;IDER. ONE, IS AN APPLICATION FUR ANNEXATION ANh A CtN1NG RECIUEST FUR A "CG" ZGNE FnR THE 4L?~ ACRF. PARCEL AT THE CC+P.FIER OF LOCUST' GkOVE AND FAIRVIEW nVE. 7'}IE: '~~,ECONU AF'{'LIC:A'PION, 1S A kEGJLIEST FUR A VJND.ITIONAL. USE FLRMI'( FUR A Rf1:FiTAL C'.TORAGE CGMFLEH. WE ARE ANXIOUS TO HAVE APPROVAL FOR THE C:TORAGE USE CO WF_ CAN BEGIN BUILLING AS LOON AS WEATHFk FERM.[TS. WE WOULD LIKE TG STAkT THIS FRGJEC'T :tN APRIL. OF 'CH [; YEAR. THI~"~ SS WHY WE AIiE Rk1NGINCi HG'FH AF'PL:[CAT111NS A'C T'HE' SAME 'LIME L'JE'N THGUGH THE C.U. PERMIT IS CONTINGENT UPON 7HF„ A1JNE]'.A'CION ANC! 2fJWING Al^FLICATION. WL•' NAVE BROUGHT ALONG SOME PICTURES OF DEVELOPMENTS IN WHICH AVES'C OR AVEST PARCNERS ARE MAJORITY OR SOLE OWNERS, WE HAVE DEEN DOING PROJECTS IN TNE: VALLEY FOR DYER 3 YEARS. THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED [''RDJECT I5 TI{E GOUTNSE{ORE SI{DPPING CEN1'E1? IN SGU"CH EAST RUT'~;E. IT WAS DESIGNED TO CutIFORM TO THE NEIGHBORS NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS AND SERVES AS A TRUE ASSE'C TO T'HE; NEIGHBORt{OOD. SOUTIiG}IORF. ZS A ?_TN, C'v)0' E{Di'FING CF.EITSR WITt{ A KMART AND AL6Ci:~ISJ,', Ai: C: E'-; F: f,I.D Wp.;'; .)CANT VE;t2TURE WITIi SOME OF TH[: SAME PECIPLE TEAT WILL F'ARTICIPA'iE IN 'OBIS PR0.7ECT, NAMGLY THE DEVELOPER OF SOUTti:~tiORE, MR. LARRY UURKIN, AND T'HE MAJORITY OWNER OF SDUTHSHORE, MR. fi'DGER ALI_.EN. MR. I~IJRKIN'S FATHEZ I{Ap A SURGERY TODAY SO LARRY GOIJLD NOT' BE !{ERIC. ON HIS BEHALF, I WDULO LIKE TU FURNiSi{ A COPY, F'OR THE RE!;ORD, DF TFIE VERY Il1PRESSIVE RESUME OF MR. DURKIN'S COM!'ANY, DA KO !'A DEVE;LDPMEt{'PS, AND I'CS ACCOMPLISI{MF.NTS OVF.,R TFIE PA:;T YEAR',',, .INI"i_UDING 5D SHOPKO STORF;S, 7. KMARTS AND 23 OTHER SHOPPING CENTER UE;VELOPMEN'IS AROUND TIIE CuUNTRY. ALS'0 INCE.UDED FOR "TFIE RECORD IS A LETTER FROM TE#E MAYOR OF DOISE, MAYOR COLES, CONCERNING TFIE SPIRIT OF COOPE12AT1ON WITH WHICH TNE SOUTHSHDRE SfIOPt'ING CE;NTEI? WAS DEVELOPED AND HIS OPINION OF ITS BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF BOISE. HAY I READ THIS ~FEURT LETTER IN FU THE RECOR[_)S? AVF'ST FIAS BEEN IN THE 5TOF?AGE F3USINE~C FOR THE F'At;T <0 YEARS'. WE OWN, SUPERVISE CONSTT?UC'CION, AND OPERATE: ALL OF OUR DWFI FACILITIES. OUR STORAGE C[JMPANIES ARE OUR MAINSTREAM INVESTMEN'C 700L. STOR-I7"S NEWEST LCIC:ATION A'I' 78(='~0 WES'C STAT'E.' Itt BOISE iS NOTED FOR IT''S BEAUTIFUL LAWN AND LANDf~CAPiNC'i AT 'CBE ENTRANCE T'O BOISE FROM EAGLE ANU HIGHWAY :.°~. I'LEASF. NOTE THF_ FICTLIRES WE EIAVE DROUGHT TONIGHT. THE STATE STREET LOCATT0P1 IS ^IMILAR TO T!IE PR;:!POC;ED S1TE AT LOCUST GROVE ANI~ FAIRVIEW IN THAT WE F!AVE A F7EIGHE+OkING t2ESIDEN'CIA1. SUBDIVISION BOR,D[SIt1NG 'CI{E TaUk'CNF.RN S1UE 2UR BACK) OF 'CITE PROPERTY. WE ARE CERTATt{ TBAT TNii PIEIGHPORS IN MERIDIAN WILL FIND, AS OUR NEIGHBORS ON S'!'ATE ST'RF:E'C HAVE F'CJUNU 'CHAT, STORA[;ES ANU STUR-1T IN PAR'LLCULAR MAKE A GUUD NEIGHBOR. I_N PAC"I~ WE MAKIs PERFECT NEIGI{.[?ORS Wr. SGREC:N OUT 'CIdE NDISE FRUM T'RAFPIC (IN THIS CASE FAIRVIFW AVENUE NUISE), Wh PROVIDE PRIVACY POR TIfEIR BACKYARDS--STOR-IT UUESN'T RAVE DOE, CHILUREtd, LIGHTS, OR ANY 0T1{ER "NEIGHBORLY" CCIMPETLT'LUN E'UR VISUAL, AUDITORY UR ACTUAL SPACE.. OUR STORAGL: F4UILDINGS PROVIDE: A SINGLE-S1L~ED, ONE STORY, LANDSCAPED BUFFER FOR MAXIM(JM BACKYARD PEACE AND v)IIIET. IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEE'LINGS WITH THE MEIOHBOR3 WHO WOULCr BE DIRECTLY AFFEC':ED BY T~iiIS S'ill2-~1Y DEVF'EPMEN'1', WE li0'i' VERY FAVORABLE RESPONSE TU THIS FR0.7EC:T AtdD WERE. Gb'RN AS?;ED BY SGVERAL NE:iGHBOR~; ON TO THE WEST OF APFLEWOOC++, IF WE GO!JL.DN'T EXTEND TILE STORAGE ON LN THEM? DIRECTIIIN. WE ALSO HAVE SUMS P7C'1'URF::; OF 'C{iE NEIhHBURNO~?DS DIRECTLY ADJOINING OUR PROPER'PY ON LOCUST AND FAIRVIFW FOI2 YO(1R REFERENCE. AVEST HELG TWU NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WE SENT OUT 7.30 1NVI:TATICJNS AND INCLUDED RESPONSE STAMPED ENVELOPE'S. ON MONDAY, DEC. 27, THE TOPICS DISCUSSED MA:CNLY CUNCEIINED THE MIRAGE MEADOW NEIGHBORS 22 ATTENDED. DN TUESDAY, DEC. 2t3, THE TOPIC WA`_S MAINI_.Y TF!E LOCUST f'~ROVE NEIGHBORS GONCEEtNS REGARDING THE NEED FOR '37DEWALKS ANI:~ BIKE LANE'S ETC. IN LIGHT OE' E7tPANSION OE' LUCLI'. T GROVE PROM A 2 LANE 'I'O A 5 LANE PUAD HY ACHD IN ['?97, AVES>T [NVITEa~ MR. LARRY SALE FROM ACHD TD ATTEND 'THIS MEETING TlJ MAKE: US AWARE, UP ACID' PLANS FOR LOCUST GROVE. L9 AT'i'ENDF'D THIS MF.:E'iING, APPROXIMATELY ID WERE NEIGHBORS THAT UIDN'T' ATTENU MONDAY NIGH`1'. I ALSO CANVASED THE MIRAGE NEIGHBORS ON OAK~~REST AFTER THE FORMAL MEETINGS THAT WERE NOT ABLE.TU ATTEND EITHER OF THE NEIGH60REi00D MEETINGS. AS A RE`_~ULT, ANOTHER I] NE'IOF(BUR~ WERE SEfOWN MAPS AND P.ECEIVED LENGTHY EHPLANATIONS OF Wt1AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEE'CINGS WERE ABOUT AND WERE GIVEN AN OPI'ORTIINTTY TO SHARE IDEAS FCJR BUFFERING USES. NOTES FROM TH1: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WERE PUl' ON FILE AT C.I'CY HALL ON TIIURSC1AY fULLOwi_NG THE MEETINGS AND I INFORMED NEIGHBORS THAT THE NOTES WE'RE THERE FOR '1'kIELH RG,ADING. THE MEETINGS WERE INFORMATIVE TO [10TH TFfE Nf:Ii~HBORS ANU AVEST. IT WAS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS "I'0 REALLY KNOW WHAT' WAS BEING PLANNED ON TF{E LAND ADJOINING THEIR PROPERTY. DUE TO A PRIOR NOTICE OF GEVELOPMEN'I BEING 5ENT UIJT PEFOItE AVE:.;T HAD DC•VELOPED A PLAN MANY OF THE NEIGHBCRS HAD UNFOUNDED F'EAR~ REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT. TU THEIR CRL-'DIT, THEY CAME WITH UI'EN MINDS AND THE DISCUSSIONS WERE 60'CH PRODUCTIVE AND CONGENIAL. ONCE AVEST WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE POSIBLE TRANSTTiONAL USES OF THE LAND, MOST OF THE NEIGFIBOR3 SEEMED FAVORABLE TO TILE STORAGE USE AS A BUFFER ANU PROVIDER CJF MAXIMIJM_PRIVAI;Y. "1'HE RETIREMENT CENTER PROPtISED FOCI 'fHE NUR7'HWE<iT CORNER UE' THE PROPERTY APPEARF,D TU ALSO BE AN ACCEI'TAB[,E BUFFERING USE FUR THE NEIGHBORS TD TkIE WEST OF APPLEWOOD. AS I MEPITIONED EARLIER, ~EVF.RAL EVEN ASK IE' THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OE' THE STORAGE' BEING Eri1'ENDEU ALONG T'HEIH PRL'PER'CY LINED. OEVERAL UINECI'LY IMPAC'T'ED t1ElGHBORS STATED THAT THEY Wi'ULD NU'T' PAVGFt HAVING A PLAYGkC1UND L'OkDEk THL•'IR PROPERTY ONCE WE DIc~CU:iUEU THE NOISE, POLLUTION, ANiC1ALS ANv UT'HEk ASPEC'CS TLlA'I' PARKS MIGIi'f BkINC; '['U THEIR BACKYARDS. WHAT AVEST HEARD, ANU WIIA1' WE WILL BE MUST SEtJSl'T'INE Tel, IS 'CHAT 1'1{L' tJL-'IGHBUR WAN'C TI] RETAIN THEIR PRIVACY FRGM P6CtPLE, BUSINESS, TRAFFIC, P[1LLLI'CIi'JN, AND NUTSI-:. BOTH '1'I1E ~,'I'ORAUE COMPLEX ANU A kE'1'LREMENT' CIi:NT'EK, WITH STRA'J'EGICALLY 1''I_ACED, 'J'HikEl a."JL:D, l.'ni~{;"ukFS UJ' '.>'i'i-r6:Aue: Aki:A:S ALONG PROPERTY LItJICu WC)ULU SERVE 'fFII5 PiJk['OSE. (NL_E ARE THL TtiINGE: TIJAT NA4T BF C i~ IN! ORI'UICATGD J N DUR I't.VELt1PIP ."lT_F~itUPC~SAL _A~ A kE_LLi_UF_THL NEI6HBURHOOD MEETINLi=ANG PS'fAF'F' kECUMMENUA'fl0ttt~: - 1. WE WOULD BE FAVURABI.E "fO CLU`_~ING AFPL£WUCill ANLi EX'fENDIiJG IT ONLY AS A RECREATIONAL PEDEST7tTAN PATH TO GUR SHOPPING CENTER LOOP kUAU WITH EMEkGENCY-ACCESS WUULE:N BALLAkUS' 'I'0 KEEP 'CIiAFFIC; UU1'. A::i A RESULT AVES'I' HAb ALkLAUY 1NCUttPUkA'I'Lli Ti1IS Ci.USUkE OF API'LEWUOU FEATURE INTO ITS PFtCJJEC'T' DESIGN. THIS WILL CALM THE TIIAFFIC LEVELS IN MIkAJiii MEADuWL: At1D IS ~'UFF'ORTED BY STAFF kr'.PUk'1'S FUR THESE NEEDED AMENl'17E.S. AL`~~U WE HAVE }TAD TALKS WT'1'H UUVE SUBDIVISION OWNER, Mlt. DAVE LEAUEk, AbUU"f iNCURPURA'1'1NG SOME L1SE OF THE ABAt1DONED DIXTE LANE FkCiM MICtAGE AT OAKGRES'f TG THE: FRONT UP T3IE S}IUPPINi:; CENT'EFt AE's A PEIiES'IRIAN PATH AS WELL. MR. ANU MkS. STTPP AtJD KAREN BLP.NLY WHO I~A[:E DI}tEUTLY UN TO AY}'I.EWUUD ANU MR. BUkKET"I' WHU~E iiLLKUUM WiNUU vJ F'AC:ES uN"I'U APPLEWUOU WILL BE E~I'ECIAL.LY BENEE'T'I'TED BY THIS ABANUuNMENT OF APYLEWOOU. ~. AVES'T HAS MET WT'CI{ TI1E Aftt_31ITECT FOR 7"F!ti SHCJSHONI BUILDING OWNEFtS AND DESIGNED AN AGCE:P'l'AbLE SHAkED ACCESS WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF' AGH[s AS WELL AS SI'ORAUE AND "THE SHUSHUN~t GWNEFCS. A1.L OF THE SITE tSPliCIFIC REVUE`~TS FROM ACHD HAVL•" BEEN FiEVIEWEU AND AF:E ACCEP'T'ABLE ANU WE WILL BE AFsLE TCt MEET 'THL-'M. MAFIY NEIGHPORS WRO'LE TU TNF_ CI'LY COUNCIL UPON THE INiTiAL NOTICE OF THE PROJECT. ALL LETTERS FROM NEIGHPORS HAVE PEEN R63PONDEU TO PERSONALLY PY AVEST. THE CITY RECEIVED 15 LE"LTERS PRIOR TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. AVEST RESPONDED TO THE I1 PEOPLE THAI' WROTE ANU WERE NUT ABLE TU ATTEND UUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGC:. THE RESPONSE LETTERS ARE IN YOUR CITY FILES. ALU AYE~T RECEIVF:P ONLY 2 LETTERS FROM THF_ 13N MAILED TO ATTEND THE NF-.I HFtQRH00D MGE"F'I"GS. FGLLUWING AFtE TFIE CONCERNS FROM NEI1]H[}UR8 LE'LTF:RS PRIOJt TU THE NEIGHRORHOOI~ ME'E'PINGS AND UUk CUMMEN'1'> ftFGAFth fJU TH'r.'M: BIKE LANES WERE A C_CINCERN-: - THES[: WILT, FL•: I1dC(7RI'I_tRATED INTO TFIE; AVEST UEVELGPMENT WITH SIDEWALKS F'OSSIHLY WI'}'FIIN THE HEItMING ALGNG LOCUST GRDVE. WALKING F'A'LH FRUM APFLF'WOUG I'O SIJUI'F'ING CENTER LOOP RCIAU AND A WAL.KTNG/HIKE PATH E'RUM DIXJE AT' MIkAGE '}'U THE FRONT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. Ct~FtUL S'IREGT ALI_GNMLNT WAS MENTIC!NGD: ACRD WILL MOkE OR LESS DECIDE THIS MATTER BC1T AVEST WILL WOkK WITH PG"LH ACHU AND THE NEIGHPUkS kEGARDING THiS C:UNCEkN. CCWCEkN ABOUT "CU" Y.O}JE: - MUEI' IJL•'(L~HBCIHS WEkE M1_!KE CC.IMF'Clli'fAbLE WITH TH1S REQUI~::;T AF'TEFt IT WAS EXF'LAINI',l~ TFlA"I L_:A__tI AND EVEIt'f F'AitT GF THE PRGIECT WILL HAVE TO GG TFIRUI1G1i CONDITIONAL USE HEARINGS ANU DESIGN REVIEW WHE'RS THEY WILL HAVE C!FPORTUNI'I'Y FOR INFU'L. AVL-'ST MUST REQUEST' T'HI 'LONI}JG TO A'T'Tf'2AC'L 'fHfi TENANTS I'1' WISHES TO HAVE PARTICIPATE IN THIS F'ROJEC"f AND THE CITY DOES NOT RELINQUISH ANY CONTkOL OVER THF. PRC1,TgG'F '::INC:E: iT [S ALL UNDER C. U. PERMIT. WE AkE ASKING FOR THIS 'LONE: BECAU~.E NAVINt~ IT MAKEti I"i' ~US`~iNLE 1'CI UE51GN 'IH1S FRGFEkI'Y 'CC! ITS }iIGHE~:T AND BEST USE. ZONING THE ENLIR6 PROPERTY "CG", AI.LnWS THE NF-.CESSARY FL.F.XI3ILITY LO COMPREHENSIVELY F"'LAN ALL FARTS OJ' THF. LAMU IN A GOM1'A'1'IPLE MIXED-IJSE DESIGN. NE:1GHb~JR:~~ WiLI.. ALWAYS HA'vE NEIGHHUfiHUOU MEETINGS, STAFF, F&Z, AND CUUNC:[l.. MF:FT.INE!c: IP# WNICH TO RESPOND AND PE HEARD PRIOR TO ANY PLtGL`OSED [)EVJLOFMJNT AI'PRGVAL. liUFl?EE2IN(i NU1tiES;, TitkIGA'I'J.(JN,., TitA(~I'1~": CHERE IS A MINIMUM 4~DC~' BUFFERING AREA BG'FWEEt1 MIRAGE MEADOWS ItE:iIDENTS FROM 9'HE ttEAl? OF 1'JiE YftUYUCLD S[iOPP1N(i CENTER. 'F111'~; WILL INSUNE; BUFFERING F'RCJM CC1MMCkCIAL AC1'IVI'FZES. IN ADDITION "FHE Pl_ANNL"G STORAGE AND/GR 1[ETIREME:N'I' CENTER MAKES A GOOD TRAN51'1'IUN FkUM RESIDENTIAL '1'U M1.kEU-U5E ANU TtiEN 'FO COMMERCIAL. ' ALSO THE kcuLJi„' liENl'~ PU}t AYYRUVAI. REGARD7:N0 IRRiGA"CIUN AND ENGINEERING RE4tUT'. "" ANTS IEFE[REi1 TU IN TFIE LETTER FROM MR. GARY SMITH WILL BE MET. ~. LUGUtiT URGVE READ FiAS BEEN ULS'Il5NA'PED 'fG BE WIDENED TU 4-S L.At1E5 BY 1547 WHZCH WILL INCREAk~E'. TRAF'F'IC. WE F'E:EL AVEST'S PARTICIPATION SUCH AS YERi1TNG, SIDEWALKS, AND LANDSCAPING WILL ~~C~F1'EN TFIE EFFECTS (iF' "I'Ii1S ROAD DEVEL.UF'MENT FUR THE NEIGHBORING HOMES FACING LCJCUS'F GkuVt. t•U5LL_; FAC1LIIiF..S;: .`.1GME NEIGHBUitS LE'Fi'EF:°~ YJ?Ul'Gf~EU USING A PLAYGROUND TU J;UFFER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WHILE AGkEEING THAT NEIGHBURHCtGD PARKS P.RE DESIkA~Lt, THE BEST i'LACE FGR IT MIGHT NOT BE NEAR BUSY CURNER OF LUCU:;'F GROVE AJ1D F'AIIiVIEW Clk A SHOPPING CEN'IEI?... Ult ALONG THE ~•ttOYU`.dED ~ I..AN1: LC"lr_:'.J;;T Gk(JVE HGAD_ IN ADDI'fIGW, THL'TtE ARE OTNi:R ALTERNATIVE BUFFERING CUNCEF'1'S FGR THIS PIECE OF PrtUPERTY THAT AFPEAk FAVORAEiLE TO 'FHE NEIGHBORS WHCt AtiE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TU 'T'HIS PRUYER`1'Y. I'f HAS bEEN S'FA7ED IN THE IDAHO 6U:;iNES9 REVIEW THAT THE CHUkCH BEING GUILT UN HIC60FtY A FHw BI_UCKS EAST OF UUR PkOJECT, WILL }IAVE ;;GME WONDERFUL COMMUNITY FACILITIES LIKE AMPHITHEATEFtS, Sl1FTBALL DIAMONDS, SWZMMINLi, TENNIS---ALL UF`E11 TU TtiE PUBLIC. WE ALL NEED TU SUPPORT THE ~HUtiCii 1N 1'HELk Eh FURT'8. IN ADDI'1'IUN, I BELIEVE THE COMP PLAN DCES St~ECIFY ACUMMUNITY PARK ON THE CURNER OF LUCU51' AND US'TICH. AVEST WANTS TO QE AN ACTIVE MBMF3ER OF THIS COMMUPdCTY AND Ni?.1GHBORHOOD--WE WAP1T 'CO HE A GOOD NETGHBf?R NOT .JUS'C 'T'O TNOSt: FAMILIES W}l0 DIRECTLY 'rOU!'H Wf2 PROPERTY, F't_I'r TO 'f}POSE PEOPLE WHCI ARE LESS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. WE HAVE MACE AN E:FP'ORT TO NEAR FROM EVERYONE THAT HAS WISNE6 1'O E:KPRESS APd OF']:NIt7td A}?C)UT THE PRC1PCiSED PRUJECT--EVEN THOSE WIJO HAVE COML•' FROM SEVERAL CiLOCKS AWAY. WE WANT THE ENTIRE AREP. TO PEVF.LOP :[N A PLEASING, UPSCALE MANNER AND WE FEEL T}iAT O:1R P}sia.J[;;,'1', ON "filE FRINI3E 17 [' T'lil:i NEWLY UEVELC?FING ME[tIDIAN NEIGHi30RH00D, WILL Ei~7'rH C~F.,RVE AF3 A GATHr'.RTNG E'LACE AN6 A CONVENIENCE TO THiS NI':W NF.IGIIf)t)KHOOD F7P.CAIJSF_ WE NOW CONSIDER THIS +~UI2 NT;CGIIP,O[?HOOD, AVEST AGREES' TO PAY IMPACT FEES ANDlOR MAKE A MONETARY 1?ONATION TO 'rHG: CITY FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER SITE A'wAY FF'tOM THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF OUR PROJECT AND THUS MORE SUI'fAELE FOR A PARK F'DR UUR NL'IGdIL'OR'.~; TO USE AND ENJOY. IT IS OUR UNDF.RS"rANDING THAT TFIE CITY IS WORKING ON IMPLEMENTING THIS CONCEPT AND WE WANT IT TO HE KNOWN THAT WE FULLY SUPPORT HAVING A1...L DEVELOPERS PAY THEIF2 FAIR SHARE IN OP.DER TO PRESERVE AND CREATE COM11UPdITY PUL3LIC AM}'N IT[ES. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO I'RE31?PI'r TfiT'~; PORTION OP TAE PROJECT, I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN OVER THt;I?ISCU~SION TO MR. ALLEN.