1993 11-090
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1993:
(APPROVED)
1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO R-40 BY JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOC.:
(APPROVED)
2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO R-4 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION BY VICKI WELKER:
(APPROVED)
3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING FOR R-4 BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON:
(APPROVED)
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-40 TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (CG) BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT CO./MICHAEL
AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE:
(PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5: LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
7
ry/
•-��� ��i /._._ _ 1���'y2l /�/%..P,f�l.�.j /y�%�h�.t�G r_�v�-L"�%'
0
9
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING NOVEMBER 9. 1993
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson:
Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani, Jim
Shearer:
Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Wayne Forrey, Gary
Smith, Larry Sale, Mike Scisoe, Bob Angell, Doris Baret,
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1993:
Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any corrections,
deletions or additions to these minutes?
Rountree: I have none.
Shearer: I have none.
Alidjani: I have no specifics.
Johnson: No specific changes, I've had a discussion with Will
regarding some of the typos and things we need to do a better job
on. When we've got two Johnson's testifying maybe we should
designate who is speaking it's kind of hard to reconstruct some of
this. In any event, we have a motion and a second for approval,
all in favor?
Rountree: We don't have a motion
Johnson: Oh, we don't have a motion, let's start over. If there
are no additions, corrections, or deletions entertain a motion for
approval.
Alidjani: I'll make a motion for approval.
Shearer: I'll second.
Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes of October 12,
1993, all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING TO R-40 BY JERRIE WOLFE AND ASSOCIATES:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as prepared by our City Attorney?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict in this matter, so I'll
have to step down.
0 0
Planning & Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 2
Johnson: Any comments regarding the Findings of Fact?
Rountree: I have none.
Alidjani: I have none.
Shearer: I have none.
Johnson: Entertain a motion then.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I'll
Planning and Zoning Commission
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Rountree: I'll second it.
make a motion that the Meridian
hereby adopt and approve these
of Law.
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions as written. This is a Roll Call Vote:
Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Conflict, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea,
Alidjani: Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass on to the City
council gentlemen?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to make a motion that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve their
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the condition (inaudible) Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and that the applicant and the owners be
specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, waterways as a
condition of annexation, and that the applicant meet all the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements, and the requirements, and require a
development agreement and the conditions of these Findings and
Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met, that
the property be annexed.
Rountree: I'll second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second, to pass a recommendation
onto the City Council with conditions so stated, all in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 3
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING TO R-4 WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION BY VICKI WELKER:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding these Findings of Facts?
Shearer: On page 2, about half way through the page, they talk
about a stub street rather than a cul de sac to access property to
the west it says, that should be to the east I believe. Because
the cul de sac is on the east end of the property and the west side
is bound by the street, Ten Mile.
Johnson: Do you agree with that Wayne?
Crookston: Yes I do.
Johnson: Any other corrections? There is one minor typo, item 19
page 12. Any other discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions with the noted changes.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: A motion and second to approve Findings of Fact and
Conclusions with corrections.
Shearer: Could I get a clarification?
Johnson: Go ahead
Shearer: We're a little bit vague I think, maybe not , in that we
say that the subdivision will meet the requirements of the City
Engineer, the City Engineer's notes on this indicates it may be
necessary to provide sanitary sewer through the property, I wonder
is that been established that we do need sanitary sewer through the
property, and is that in conjunction with the elimination of the
cul de sac and putting a stub road.
Johnson: Well, I think what the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law is saying, is that he determines that to be the case and
that's the course we'd have to follow. Is that how you interpret
that rather than be that specific?
Crookston: Yes, at this juncture the Findings are really part of
the annexation only and not of the plating, but those comments are
very relevant to the annexation.
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 4
Johnson: In other words, I don't think it has to be decided on as
long as, only the City Engineer decides in that specific area with
these comments.
Shearer: Are we addressing the Preliminary Plat tonight on this?
Rountree: Not until we address the Annexation
Shearer: Well I just wondered it says with Preliminary Plat, and
that's why I was wondering.
Rountree: You could make a recommendation
Shearer: You could
Johnson: We'd have to do that afterwards.
Shearer: Okay I've delayed this long enough.
Johnson: Okay, we have a motion and a second, this is a Roll Call
Vote.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea,
Alidjani: Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendations for the City Council?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that 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 in the
condition set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on the decision, the
recommended decision to the City Council, all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any comments or instructions regarding the Preliminary
Plat? Mr. Forrey
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this
particular application was submitted and processed by the City as
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 5
a Annexation and Zoning request with a Preliminary Plat, it was
done at the request of the applicant and with support of the city
staff because this project and one other project were held up
during the moratorium. We agreed to try and expedite after the
moratorium was lifted any project that we possibly could with
fairness to the development community, so a recommendation if you
agree or if you choose to do this would be to if you can to act on
the Preliminary Plat to keep it moving onto the City Council
schedule if possible.
Johnson: Okay, thanks Wayne for that explanation. Gary Smith, is
there any comment you have regarding the Preliminary Plat please?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I have a very preliminary
comment on this sewer. It appears as though, and working with the
engineer with Haven Cove Subdivision, that extension of that sewer
from Haven Cove into and through Dr. Coe's property is going to be
very "iffy" as far as maintaining a depth a reasonable depth on the
sewer. By the time the sewer gets to the southwest corner of Haven
Cove its only approximately 4 feet deep, and to carry it on into
Dr. Coe's property to serve all of his it doesn't appear that it's
a workable solution. So I think that when all the calculations are
in we'll find we need to come from Ten Mile Road to serve his
property with sewer, gravity wise. And to do that means crossing
the Eight Mile Lateral and my attitude towards sewer lines and
something other than public right of way is not very good, so I
guess from that standpoint I would support a stub road from this
property to Dr. Parker's and I guess that would fall in line with
the Highway District's suggestion of stubbing into his property for
access. Now there will also be a possibility of an access out of
the southwest corner of Haven Cove. Presently that Preliminary
Plat doesn't show an access at that point, they show 3 accesses
along their south boundary and one of them I believe was fairly
close to Dr. Coe's property or it was common to his east property
and his neighbor to the east, but that stub road on that southerly
most east -west street in Haven Cove could be moved east and west.
So there is a possibility of 2 access points for vehicles. Are
there any questions you might have.
Johnson: Do you have any questions of Gary or Wayne Forrey?
Hepper: So are looking at that sewer coming out of Haven Cove or
coming down Ten Mile?
Smith: No, I think the sewer for Dr. Coe's property will need to
come form Ten Mile through this proposed subdivision rather than
out of Haven Cove, it appears as though we're only about 4 feet
deep at Haven Cove's south boundary. It doesn't look like it's
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 6
deep enough to get back into Dr. Coe's property, because the sewer
line is coming uphill upgrade faster than the ground is.
Hepper: What is the distance that they will have to bring that
sewer from down at Ten Mile?
Smith: Well, they have to bring it, Valeri Heights has to bring it
down Ten Mile anyway, so it is just a matter of extending it.
Instead of cul de sac in Valeri Heights it will be a stub street to
their east boundary and it would be just a matter of extending the
sewer to their east boundary or to Eight Mile Lateral.
Rountree: Excuse me, where is the sewer coming from if Valeri
Heights doesn't bring it from Ten Mile?
Shearer: They are
Rountree: Why is it so low then coming through Parker's property?
Shearer: That is Haven Cove
Smith: Haven Cove's sewer, because Haven Cove's sewer is out of
the Nine Mile trunk line, over on the west side of the Vineyards
subdivision. And in order to get sewer to the southwest corner of
Haven Cove we had to run some of it at .3% which is less than the
minimum .4% required by the State of Idaho, when we do that the
City of Meridian has to state that we understand it's less than
minimum grade and we understand that there is a possibility of
increased maintenance required on that sewer line, but that is the
only way we can get sewer into that southwest corner of Haven Cove.
When the sewer line was extended south on Ten Mile Road from Cherry
Lane it was my intention all along that we could get the sewer
almost to Pine and that the property to the west, to the east of
Ten Mile Road to the north of Pine could sewer back to Ten Mile
Road. So Valeri Heights falls into that service area, Dr. Coe's,
Dr. Parker's falls into that same area. And right now the sewer is
at the roadway that accesses the Fuller Park or the Little League
Baseball fields. Anything else I can answer?
Johnson: I don't think so Gary, thank you. Any other questions,
any comments Mr. Sale?
Sale: No Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission
for the record, I'm Larry Sale of Ada County Highway District, we
wrestled with the question of access out of this subdivision for
sometime with the applicant, we should support the comments Mr.
Smith made regarding the extension of streets and especially if its
necessary to provide sewer out of this project. If I understood
that correct, are you suggesting to extend the street out of Haven
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 7
Cove to serve Dr. Coe's property or out of this one? How about the
stub street? I have told Dr. Coe, or is it Parker or Coe?
Johnson: I think its Coe -Parker.
Sale: That we would support an extension of a street out of Haven
Cove, and the utilities are obviously up to you folks.
Shearer: Now you have confused me. I was under the impression
that we were taking a stub street out of Valeri Heights also in
place of the, isn't that what the recommendation said?
Sale: The Highway District recommendation was to stub a street to
the south boundary of Valeri Heights, parallel to the drainage
ditch.
Shearer: Okay
Johnson: Any other discussion, are you still confused?
Shearer: I didn't think I was confused before. I just wondered if
maybe we should see a revised Preliminary Plat before we make
approval and recommendation, show these changes.
Johnson: Is that a motion?
Shearer: I don't know. What does everybody else feel on this?
Rountree: My question goes back to what Larry said, that is at one
point in time we had a recommendation and that's reflected in the
Findings of Fact that there is a stub street as opposed to a cul de
sac to the east of the subdivision, and that I would be consistent
with what Gary wants in terms of a public right of way and a
utility corridor, correct. But not necessarily what ACHD is asking
for.
Johnson: Mr. Hepper what do you think?
Hepper: I don't know, I'm kind of confused on this too now. As I
understand the Highway Department is asking for a stub street to
the east.
Johnson: We don't have a larger map, do we?
Rountree: Jim has one right here.
Sale: We were aware of the utility problems that Mr. Smith has
identified. We felt there should be a stub connection to the
0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 8
south because its, that property is going to have difficulty
serving back into that corner next to the canal. By the same token
there is a need to have a utility extension across the drainage
ditch to the east into the neighboring property, we would support
the extension of a street in that same corridor, and then drop our
request for the extension to the south boundary as long as we get
a way out of the property that is our primary concern.
Shearer: I hear what he is saying, but I don't know what we would
approve if we approve something.
Johnson: Okay, thanks Larry I appreciate it. What is your
pleasure, would you like to take action on the Preliminary Plat at
this time?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we visit the
recommendation on the Preliminary Plat at such time we see the plat
revised for the conditions in the Findings of Facts, and the
requirements of the City Engineer.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING TO R-4 BY EDWARD A. JOHNSON:
Johnson: Any comments at all, Commissioner Hepper?
Hepper: No, I have none.
Johnson: Mr. Shearer?
Shearer: I have none.
Johnson: Mr. Alidjani?
Alidjani: ON the same changes you made before on item #19.
Johnson: I had one other spelling, minor spelling on item #2 on
page 2, it should read additional, its about 10 lines down from the
top, righthand side of the page. Any other comments? I like this
new format of Findings of Fact, where it address the Comprehensive
Plan. It's a little more detail I think a better job, more
encompassing. Any Discussion? Entertain a motion for approval.
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 9
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopt and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions.
Shearer: I'll second
Johnson: A motion and a second for approval, Roll Call Vote.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper: Yea, Rountree: Yea, Shearer: Yea,
Alidjani: Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendations to the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of
Meridian that they approve the 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 tile
all ditches, canals, and waterways as a condition of the annexation
and that the applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian specifically including the development time requirements
and the required development agreement and the conditions of these
Findings of Law, and if the conditions are not met to be de -
annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: A motion and a second for the recommendation to the City
Council so stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-40 TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (CG) BY DORADO DEVELOPMENT CO./MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA
SCISCOE:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing, is there a
representative for the applicant, or the applicant that would like
to come forward and address the Commission, please do so at this
time. You will need to be sworn, state your name and address.
Mike Sciscoe, 1711 North 30th, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Sciscoe: We are looking at getting that corner lot out there as
stated in the zoning request change from R-40 to CG, the property
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 10
to the north is already CG, and we're looking, the Sciscoe's
personally, are looking at the .41 acre lot that is on the inside
of .95 acre that is looking a t being rezoned that is now R-40.
We have a small bookstore that we would like to expand, and we were
looking to move into the Meridian area since we lived here
approximately 16 years ago. We are wanting to get back, we have
been in Boise this whole time. We have a small store now but like
I say we need to expand that store so that we can do more business,
we have traffic to the store its approximately an average of 3
customers a day, it is cyclical though most of our business is in
the summer, I would say from April to September we do a little more
business. We are expanding the market by doing more mail order
business on a regional basis, so it won't increase the traffic
levels to any large amount but we are basically looking for the
space in a residence for ourselves in this area.
Johnson: Okay, thank you, any questions for the applicant Mr.
Sciscoe? Wayne Crookston
Crookston: I just need a little clarification, where is your
property in relation to the apartments that are in that area?
Sciscoe: From James Court, the south side of James court, to the
north on the front of Meridian, its about 177 feet in from the
corner in from James Court, Meridian Road, north of that is where
our property begins.
Shearer: That is that large home that is there, it was an
engineering office for a while.
Sciscoe: The Ambrose, the old Ambrose house. No they are just to
the north of us we are south of them. There is a small, 1800
square foot brick house there now on a half acre.
Crookston: Maybe you don't know this, but when that property was
zoned or annexed and zoned to R-40 they proposed an apartment type
development also, is that right?
Sciscoe: Dorado? Yes they did.
Crookston: Where then are they going to get access to Meridian
Road to their development?
Sciscoe: I believe they are going to be coming up James Court, is
what the plan is, I'm not, Bob Angell's wa going to try and make it
here tonight too, are you here Bob, maybe he would be better to
address those questions regarding the development of that property.
•
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 11
Crookston: Are you going to testify?
Angell: Yes sir.
Crookston: I'll wait to ask him.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions?
Hepper: Have you seen the comments by the Ada County Highway
Department?
Sciscoe: Yes, I have, and I'm not sure how much of those are
directed towards us as it would be toward Dorado with the larger
development. We're basically a small family owned business, and
our family is the only one's involved i running it at this time.
Hepper: That is why I was wondering if you had seen it, because
there was, you know I don't seem to have it right here.
Shearer: I can't seem to find it either.
Hepper: Yes, some of the requirements, traffic impact study and
easements and taking our curb cuts and adding curb cuts.
Sciscoe: Right now there are two curb cuts right now on our
property, one because there is an attached single car garage and
there is a detached double car, there is two cuts for ours already,
within the area we are talking about.
Hepper: Anyway, you don't have a problem with Ada County's
requirements?
Sciscoe: As far as I have been able to interpret it no, and I will
need some clarifications as we get deeper into it, but we are
willing to work with everybody and getting this worked out.
Hepper: That is what we all like to here.
Johnson: Okay, any other questions for Mr. Sciscoe? Okay, thank
you, public hearing, anyone else like to come before the
Commission? You need to be sworn, state your name and address
please sir.
Bob Angell, 35 Horizon Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Angell: Perhaps I could clarify and add a little bit, from the
time that, and obviously we are familiar with he requirements set
forth by the City and Ada County Highway Department regarding this
entire parcel which at the time of rezoning was approximately 7.6
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 12
acres, .41 acres is the parcel that Mr. Sciscoe has acquired which
consists of what we call the Himmerich parcel the original home
and that would leave us approximately 7.21 acres in the remaining
R-40 zoned parcel which would extend basically 177.15 feet at the
junction of James Court and Meridian Road to the north and then
would go along in a easterly direction 1058 feet. The road as I'm
sure you're aware in James Court is presently undergoing renovation
and there has been some dedication of right of way from us on this
entire parcel to enable the other subdivision, its the one that is
just to the east of the low income apartment project on James
Court, anyway in any manner we wish to provide a buffer for prior
to any development of any multi -family on the bulk of our parcel
and we have developed a legal description of parcel 3, which simply
squaring off that 177.15 feet that also goes from this northerly
point in an easterly direction 136.05 feet to run 136 feet along
James Court and then continue in a northerly direction to close
the rectangle, it will consist of about .55 acres and we've asked
to join Mr. Sciscoe in a rezone of CG it is our intent to develop
that parcel into an office use consistent with the zoning
requirements and to once again provide a buffer to the property to
the east. We think that is the highest and best use for that
property.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Angell, any questions of Dorado
Development?
Rountree: What is going to be the width of James Court?
Angell: I think Mr. Sale could probably mention that, it is my
understanding that we'll start out with a 26 foot right of way
which is to be dedicated by the present owners of the low income
apartment project on the south. We are giving 30 feet from the
entire 1057 feet of our parcel, and the developers of the new
subdivision there that is to the east in the south of James Court
is also giving 30 feet so that would be a 60 foot roadway, 56 to 60
feet.
Rountree: Of you own knowledge, is that going to be a public right
of way?
Angell: Yes, you probably asked the question but it is our intent
to utilize the access ingress and egress to our parcel if you
decide to zone it, as per a request from James Court not from north
Meridian Road.
Rountree: The parcel that you want to develop, is that north of
the Sciscoe's?
Angell: No sir that is directly south of the Sciscoe's, it is
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 13
nearly the same size if you were to draw that line on a southerly
direction 177.15 feet that intersects with the property line at
James Court you'd have that rectangle in there that is .55 acres.
Hepper: So you're going to be the one that is adjacent to James
Court, that's your property.
Angell: Yes
Johnson: Okay, any other questions?
Shearer: Your intended use is for an office?
Angell: Yes
Shearer: Professional type?
Angell: Yes, that is our hope.
Rountree: You are also asking for CG zoning?
Angell: We're asking for CG zoning.
Rountree: But you're going to build offices
Angell: Yes, most likely
Johnson: This is not on this application though, right?
Shearer: No, this is part of it.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Angel?
Rountree: Is there some reason for not desiring your property to
be zoned Limited Office?
Angell: No, we just thought for simplicity it would probably be
easier to go for CG zone on the entire parcel other than split it
into 2 different zoning requests. I didn't know that it made that
much difference but that is not my call.
Crookston: I'm not sure that the offices would be allowed, not
without a rezone.
Shearer: They are allowed.
Hepper: Is there any access from you property through to the east?
0 i
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 14
Angell: No, nor was any contemplated we anticipate there will be
most probably a fence or berm or some separation between the
development and the frontage. I would guess that would be a
requirement.
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Angell we may ask you
again further down the road here. Anyone else from the public like
to come forward at this time?
Doris Baret, 2250 North Meridian Road, was sworn by the Attorney.
Baret: I have a couple of questions I have not received all the
information about this parcel about what their intent was, it was
my understanding he was going to have a small woodworking shop and
then I find out tonight its going to be a bookstore so I don't know
whether he is going to live in the residence and have a bookstore
next to him, so I guess I just need some clarification. The other
thing is we have the Ambrose property, and I was wondering could we
have them, or could it be required that they put up a fence between
their property and our property?
Johnson: Where does your property lie, where is the Ambrose
property?
Baret: It is just north of what of their development, or rezoning
request.
Johnson: Okay, that is a good question, we will answer that
question before the evening is over. I'm going to have Wayne
Forrey talk a little bit about the letter he wrote regarding this
application and why its mixed use and how the design and site plans
will be reviewed by staff as they come in. At this point we are
only talking a rezone.
Shearer: Can I ask a question, are you currently using your house
for residence or?
Baret: Residence
Shearer: It was an office before you moved in right?
Baret: Yes
Shearer: Thank you
Johnson: Any other questions or is that it?
Baret: I think, I was just curious, not really understanding.
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 15
Johnson: Well, if you have any other questions feel free to ask.
Baret: Any other questions?
Johnson: I don't think so. Anyone else from the public like to
come forward. Well, Wayne if you would elaborate for the record a
little on your letter I would like even though your letter is a
matter of record, why this area was designated in the Comprehensive
Plan as mixed use and also about reviewing any site plans.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, during the public
comments on the Comprehensive Plan the area behind Albertson's as
it was referred to was generally regarded as an area where there
should be good planning and site planning. In the Comprehensive
Plan we identified a mixed use concept, mixed planned use
development as its referred in the Comprehensive Plan as a way to
address these issues where you have different uses together in the
same area and this is an area where we had a commercial development
on the south existing commercial development, Mrs. Baret's
property, the lady that just addressed the Commission, she is zoned
Commercial General, I guess it was formerly used as an office,
across the street is a quality residential neighborhood, there are
apartments in the area, so it was an appropriate designation not
necessarily the specific land use but rather does it blend and mix
and is it compatible from a site planning standpoint from all of
those uses, so I think the key here is if this is approved by the
Commission and by the Council and rezoned the key is good analysis
by the City on compliance with out Ordinance in terms of the
screening, the fencing, the landscaping the access, signage, those
types of things are perhaps as critical as the question of zone.
We are updating the Zoning Ordinance, and its possible that when
Mr. Sciscoe or Dorado submit building plans to the City that we may
very well have new requirements for landscaping, signage, etc., but
I can assure if they submit today we'll evaluate it very thoroughly
against our existing Ordinance. Especially in light of the
development agreement authority that you have on a zone change in
our current Zoning Ordinance. I do believe this zone change
complies with our current Comprehensive Plan and our proposed
Comprehensive Plan and its in a specific area that we had public
testimony on encouraging a mix of uses as long as everyone is well
planned and coordinated. I hope that helps.
Johnson: That does help, it helps the public and I appreciate
that. Just one minute we need to change the tape.
Shearer: I don't believe the Ordinance currently addresses this
screen between commercial and commercial.
Forrey: No it does not
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 16
Shearer: Which we're, which this screen that is being discussed .
Forrey: That is correct it directly says commercial shall screen
itself from an adjoining residential use.
Shearer: But both of these are commercial.
Johnson: Which kind of leaves them to fend for themselves, really
what it boils down to.
Shearer: Which our new Ordinance I assume is going to address.
Forrey: Definitely it does
Shearer: When and if
Johnson: It is almost if. Okay, any other comments?
Rountree: I've got a question I guess specific to an action we
took earlier tonight in our proposed Comp Plan, which identifies as
corridors one of the entrance corridors into the City with the
setback requirements for landscape for future development, it seems
I'm not suggesting that the intent is here, but this would be a way
to circumnavigate that emphasis in our Comp Plan by rezoning the
frontage property into small lots that can't accommodate the wide
landscape buffer and then develop the further inward properties
into whatever the existing zoning is, I guess that's a concern I
see with the rezone of that frontage property and such a narrow
band.
Forrey: Given the scale, the larger the scale the greater
opportunity we have for a better entrance, the smaller the
opportunity, that is a good point, correct. You know we have an
opportunity in the current Zoning Ordinance to require a
development agreement as part of a zone change. I forget the
citation I think it 417, I can look it up and that maybe is and
item where we can attach to any rezone that the frontage along
Meridian Road be landscaped to at least have that landscaped theme
because it an entrance to the City.
Johnson: That's a good point Charlie. Anything else of Mr.
Forrey, if not I thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the
public like to come forward, anyone else who has testified that has
a question they want clarified further, still confused, maybe not
confused just more clarification? Seeing no one and hearing
nothing then I will close the public hearing at this time. This
would require a preparation of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 17
Shearer: Are you looking for a motion?
Johnson: If you so desire, I need to lead by the hand.
Shearer: I move that we have the Attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law for this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: For the Rezone right? We have a motion for Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and a second, all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Thank you for testifying. I have one other item I just
want to throw out at you and put in ont he record before we close
and then we can see if anyone else has any other comments. With
the help of the City and Patsy Fedrizzi who is doing some work for
the City specifically I've been looking at some landscape
Ordinances of other Cities, I think I've looked at 8 total and
tried to compare ours as much as I could to theirs. In most of
instances I don't think our Ordinance is very good, it is better
than some, but it certainly is not as good as several that I've
looked and I have only looked at like I say 8 cities north to south
and some of our neighboring cities. I think our Ordinance needs
some work and so does Wayne and some other people. I'm not one for
copying somebody else's Ordinance cause I think you have to come up
with something that is pertinent to your own environment, your own
community, but I don't see any shortcuts to put anything together
without a workshop. I would like to get some material to you
people and have you review it and get some comments back from you
so we can begin the process of revamping that Ordinance with a
little more specific. Right now it doesn't work because its rather
vague and its not very specific in some areas. It lends itself to
be abused, and it has been used as a matter of record. You know we
don't designate for example types of trees, species most Ordinances
do because depending on where you live they have withstand the
drought situation or whatever. In addition to that the size is
lacking, types of shrubbery that sort of thing how far the setbacks
are what concessions you make. You know to encourage landscaping
is another thing, most of the other Ordinances approach it from
kinds of a trade off position, if you are doing, for example,
landscape on off street parking they maybe will give up 5 feet of
the Ordinance requirement for setback if that is replaced by
landscaping and the landscaping is specifically laid out as to how
it is to be designed, how it is to be maintained is another thing
which our Ordinance doesn't address. So we really need to do
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 18
some work there its probably a lot of similar Ordinances that need
similar work done but we need to start somewhere. I will get you
some material I think it will be food for thought in nothing else,
and I'd like your comments so we can get together and start working
on revamping the Ordinance in conjunction with Wayne an whoever
else. Any feedback on that or? Patsy is on a contract with the
City to do some Economic Development work, I don't know how she got
assigned to this specifically, I only know she has come to me with
information and I'm trying to channel it back to Planning and
Zoning as much as I can. Does anyone have anything else before we
close, go ahead Wayne.
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I noted
that in the Findings of Facts that were approved tonight the
development agreement was specifically addressed in each of them
and I need to compliment Wayne, he does a very good job in Findings
of Fact, the City of Twin Falls their Findings are one paragraph
you see the difference here and how specific. It is a little tough
to administer when is says approved, you don't have a list of
criteria and its a very good basis. I noted that in the past the
Commission has always said we need to do a better job of follow up,
monitoring, making sure what is said here and in the Findings gets
built and I uncovered a situation where specifically the testimony
of the developer said we would landscape and talked about the
height of a berm and today it is not there and we're following that
through with the developer and using the Findings of Fact as the
tool to enforce what happened at a P & Z 7 or 8 months which we all
assumed would get built, so that just points out the fact that
these development agreements are extremely important, the Findings
of Fact are extremely important, what is said here is extremely
important and so it is important that Gary and myself and everyone
else Larry Sale whoever is involved to follow up. Wayne is going
to give me a list of everything that had a development agreement
I'm going to dig into the Findings, dig into the testimony keeping
a check off sheet of who said what and what was approved. This one
I'm referring to started with Tim Hepper's questioning of are you
going to provide landscape and that one question opened up the
developer to say yes and here is how I'm going to do it, if you
hadn't asked the question Tim, he might never have addressed it, it
never would have gotten into the Findings of Fact, and today we'd
have a subdivision on the Intersection to our arterial roads with
no landscaping, and we will now, ultimately we'll have some kind of
screen, so your questions are important, the follow up is extremely
important but it is important on myself, Gary and others and we're
going to get there so at times I think its fair to say "hey Wayne
6 months ago we approved the Himerich and Dorado" or whatever how
are we coming on the screening or landscape or the development
agreement those are good, fair questions, and I hope to be able to
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 19
click off the status of each of those. And I need your help on
anything, any key project in the community that doesn't look right,
call and say what is going on why isn't there a fence or a tree or
whatever.
Johnson: My concern has always been that we often times put
additions on things and we never know if its done or not, we don't
get the feedback. Not that we should have it but the City should.
Alidjani: I have a question, maybe its a common question, how are
we going to enforce that, even though I was one of the guys asking
that question, do you have a questionnaire or do you have all the
recommendations from different entities. What do we do, is it a
possibility that we cannot issue, such as this subdivision not even
a first building permit until all requirements have been met?
Forrey: I believe we have that authority we've just got to enforce
it, in this case it is after the fact, I think over half the
subdivision is built and occupied.
Alidjani: It sounds to me like we don't have a leverage regardless
how we go about it.
Forrey: That goes to Wayne's expertise as to what type of
leverage, in this case the developer has acknowledged Tim Hepper's
questions in, it was recorded, and so now he is bound to do
something, screen that subdivision in someway, and we are having a
meeting we've got the neighbors involved in it now, its unfortunate
it had to come this way all this staff involvement we could have
done it real quick.
Hepper: I have a question for you Wayne, over there in Meridian
Greens and those subdivisions going in there was a comment made
here a while back on tiling the ditch and stuff, and one of them
said well Planning and Zoning and City Council didn't mention so we
didn't have to do it, and basically we got away with it. If it is
an Ordinance they have to do but we don't pin them down, and say
what are you going to do are you specifically going to do this we
don't necessarily corner them but it is still an Ordinance they are
still required to do it aren't they?
Forrey: They are, and the Ordinance doesn't require landscaping of
a subdivision, so when you ask the question are going to provide
landscaping that is something the developer volunteered, and it
became a matter of record and it became a condition. Tiling a
ditch you don't have to ask that question that is an Ordinance
provision. The Findings of Fact simply state that you must comply
with all applicable Ordinances and tiling is one of them, so you
don't have to ask that to get it. Landscaping in this case you
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 20
would.
Shearer: This particular case that Tim is talking about I don't
think that was an Ordinance at the time that.
Hepper: That is what I was wondering if there was a time frame in
there to where the subdivision was put in before it became an
Ordinance.
Shearer: I think that is right, in that particular case.
Alidjani: Something has been on my mind for quite some time, there
is a subdivision on Candlelight north of Cherry Lane on Ten Mile.
Candlelight has curbs and gutters the one before does not, any
explanation?
Forrey: I'm not familiar with that.
Alidjani: If you can picture that the bottom one has berms, grass
comes against the blacktop, and then the next one, no curbs and
gutters, no sidewalks, and Candlelight does have curbs and gutters.
Forrey: Do you know Larry?
Sale: I think that has to do with the streets around the Ten Mile
area, it has to do with the impact fee and trust fund. The
subdivision was approved by the Highway District after April 15th
of 1992 our Ordinance prohibits us from requiring the curb/gutter
an pavement widening on arterial and collectors unless we pay for
it, which we are prepared to do in some cases, in other cases we
feel that it may be an isolated piece which we wouldn't want to do
or when they feel it is premature or for some reason or another we
elect not to pave the development and I suspect that's the case
there. I'm sure that's the answer.
Johnson: It just sticks out like a sore thumb though.
Rountree: The sidewalks don't even line up.
Alidjani: Is there a possibility it would be done?
Sale: It would be done by the Highway District, using impact fee
revenue or in connection with some improvement project on Ten Mile
Road, I'm sorry where is it from there.
Alidjani: Approximately a 1/4 of a mile north of Cherry Lane and
Ten Mile on the east side of the road.
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 21
Sale: About the same time you were starting, starting to talk at
least, about your Comprehensive Planning process we were going
through an evolution process of changing the standards for some of
these section line roads. If I can bore you with a little bit of
history, we went through a period back in the 70's when Ada county
was under the control of a couple of individuals who foresaw no
need to plan for growth, as a result the traffic model in APA was
changed to reflect of that to. The transportation plan for coming
out requiring 50 feet 60 feet of right of way for collectors of
arterial because there wasn't going to be any people in here so we
didn't have handle large volumes of traffic, obviously that was
incorrect and in the past couple of year the Highway District and
APA has realized that and has made a fairly dramatic change in
attitude, toward required rights of way, fortunately the City of
Meridian has topped us all and required 80 feet of right of way and
we thank you for that, in this particular case I think we were in
that process of looking at widths of roads, that would explain why
the sidewalks don't line up. A previous project was done under
previous scenario in which we only building 41 feet curb to curb
roads of a 60 or 66 foot right of way along Ten Mile Road, and now
we're looking at 65 or 70 feet curb to curb, if its 70 feet of it
is on a bike plan 65 if it was not and a right of way with 90 feet.
I apologize for what it looks like right now you are going to have
to live with it for awhile, until we go in and fix it.
Alidjani: Thank you
Johnson: Okay, anyone else have anything before we adjourn.
Rountree: I have a couple of things, while we have Larry why don't
we talk about our P & Z packets and the comments from ACRD, see
what they need.
Johnson: One of the things, Larry, that we talked about earlier
among ourselves, was the need for the necessary lead time to
properly prepare for the meeting and on our last Planning and
Zoning meeting there were 3 applications at least where we hadn't
received andy ACHD comments, this is not meant to be critical, we
just need to . Our ideal scenario would be to have everything in
place on a Friday prior to the Tuesday meeting, I know you are
busy.
Sale: I appreciate that Mr. Chairman, we turn on a normal
application one in which we don't defer for further information or
have a problem with we turn in the longest period of time if we
receive it on a Tuesday it will not be a staff report will not be
prepared until the second friday after that, every application that
we are routed by the other agencies by Friday or in some cases up
until noon on Monday will be reviewed in that week by staff, and
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 22
our staff reporters prepared and finalized that Friday morning, the
Friday morning of that week, it goes to our commissioners the
following Wednesday, but those are accumulated for a week the
previous week, anything we get in one week we review it, and the
following week it goes to the Commissioner the following Wednesday.
Usually you will not receive an action from us until the Thursday
the day after, we don't send it out until Wednesday afternoon or
Thursday of the week of which the Commissioners have approved our
staff report. So the longest period of time you should have will
be if we receive an application from you on Monday we won't send
out the action letter until the 3rd Wednesday, the 3rd Thursday
we'll send out the action letter, if that same application were
received on a Friday it would get out to you one week earlier.
Berg: So I need to be anywhere for 11 to
Sale: Plus mail time, now that you have a professional planning
staff, we would encourage the City to send your staff to the
technical review committee on Friday morning which meets every
Friday morning at 9:30. That you will have at least the staff
report unacted on by the commission you will have it that day.
Johnson: Do you have an agenda of that prepared in advance?
Sale: Yes
Johnson: So it could be faxed?
Sale: We could fax it to you on at late as Thursday noon usually
about by Wednesday we have a typed agenda.
Johnson: Would that be helpful to have that, have that agenda
faxed over so we know what items on there are pertinent to
Meridian.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Larry do you
think it would be acceptable to include in the Commissions packets
staff recommendations without Commission action?
Johnson: Larry would have a better feel for that, Larry how often
are they changed or altered?
Sale: Not very often, but by the time you met that action would
have occurred so then.
Johnson: You mean we could verify with a phone call?
Sale: Yes, in your staff report these come out, they are stamped
graphed.
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 23
Johnson: So what you are saying we could cut it down to a week if
we went to that, I think it would, well I don't know, I'm not going
to make that statement, I was going to say it would be better to
have something rather than nothing.
Sale: I guess we handle about 1200 to 1500 applications a year in
that fashion and 10 to 15 of them are changed by the Commission, so
1%.
Johnson: Is that right? Okay, thanks a lot I think we can
certainly work with that and that would help us a lot. I think,
again not to be critical, yours is the missing one when we are
missing one from agencies, and that's obvious because of proximity
as well as everything. Except for Gary Smith because he is
overworked too.
Sale: Well, there is a brand new office back there he should be
able to keep up now.
Johnson: There aren't anymore bodies around to help him.
Sale: I understand that Mr. Chairman.
Johnson: He is a little more isolated I don't get to see him as
much anymore.
Sale: I couldn't encourage you more to have Wayne come to these
meetings because his input obviously will help us make our
decision. The other side of that then he will understand hopefully
the rational that goes into a certain condition that goes into a
certain condition, we say we know what is says because we wrote it
but sometimes the ink is not dry on these reports until we're
looking at 30 new applications and if you ask me what we're doing
on a certain application I have to go look in the book I don't know
whether it was last week this week or 2 weeks ago.
Johnson: Well I certainly think Wayne will go to the City with
that request and hopefully we can have a representative at those
meetings. Speed up the process somewhat give us a better feel for
it. Thanks for bringing that up Charlie, anything else?
Rountree: One more thing and Gary will volunteer my absenteeism on
the fencing committee, the new schedule in the format of the
committee meetings makes it real difficult for me to attend, I'd
like to turn in my resignation for that Committee, if you would
accept it and maybe consider somebody else. I do want to thank
Will for the 3 course dinner tonight. I think the committee is
working real well we pretty much have the format of what variances
are going to be considered, the engineering and the safety I would
0 0
Planning and Zoning
November 9, 1993
Page 24
put in a plug that we all do struggle with aesthetics and maybe Mr.
Shearer could add some
Johnson: I've got a policy I don't accept any resignations unless
they are in writing. Anything else. Entertain a motion for
adjournment.
Rountree: So moved
Shearer: Second
Johnson: All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea
Adjourned at 8:44 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
I JOHN ON CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
` - �� i �z
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
ORIGINAL �-
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
VICRIE WELKER
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11,
T.3N., R.1W, B.M., ADA COUNTY,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on October 9, 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 Council having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant not appearing but
through her engineer, Matt Munger, 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 October 9, 1993, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the October 9, 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;
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 8.75 acres in size but only 6.77 acres is being
platted; the parcel is on the east side of Ten Mile Road north of
Pine and south of Cherry Lane Road; that Matt Munger stated at the
hearing that the residential development would be 21 lots 16 of
which would be building lots; that the density would be 2.6 units
per acre; that the lot sizes would vary from 10,000 to 21,000
square feet; that the homes constructed would be around 2,400
square feet; that access would be from Ten Mile Road; that the Ada
County Highway District wanted a stub street rather than the cul-
de-sac to access property to the w that no sidewalk was planned
P
around the common lot in the center of the proposed subdivision
which was approximately 12,000 to 13,000 square feet; that Eight
Mile irrigation lateral would be tiled; that there would be no
pressurized irrigation ; that drainage would be retained on-site.
3. That Coe Parker testified that he had no frontage to
develop his property and that he desired access to sewer and water
from or through this parcel.
4. That Dave Fuller testified that he had questions over
access to water in a tiled lateral and he had concern over sewer to
the land that he owned and possibly would develop for commercial
use.
5. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT
and the proposed use would be for R-4 residential type development
as above stated.
6. The general area surrounding the property is used
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2
agriculturally but there is residential development occurring to
the north and east across Eight Mile Lateral and across Ten Mile
Road and to the west which are single family developments.
7. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
8. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but it has submitted the consent of the titled owners, DeWayne and
Millie Bailey.
9. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
10. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian
Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is
defined in the current Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
11. 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.
12. That the property is in the WARRIOR Neighborhood as set
forth in Policy Diagram in the current Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
that the property is in the Meridian Schools Neighborhood District
as designated in the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed
Comprehensive Plan designates the area where the land in the
application is located to be a mixed residential area; that under
Housing Development on page 25 and 26 of the Current Comprehensive
Plan, property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3
0
0
developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre and
it is the policy that a density of greater than 1 dwelling unit per
5 acres may not be exceeded outside of the Urban Service Planning
Area.
13. That in the Rural Area section of the currant
Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until it is no longer
economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain
agricultural pursuits.
14. That the proposed 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."
15. That the proposed 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 .
16. That the proposed 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, when Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
17. That the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4
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
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."
18. 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.
19. That the property can be serviced with City water and
sewer at this time.
20. Meridian Police Department, Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District, Settlers Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District
and Bureau of Reclamation may submit comments and such shall be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Meridian City
Engineer, Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Idaho Power, and the Meridian School District submitted
comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
21. That the comments from the City Engineer regarding
determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions,
water and sewer main locations, and providing sanitary sewer
through this property to Coe Parker, are specifically and duly
noted.
22. That the comments from the Meridian Fire Chief were that
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5
•
there should be a stub street south into other land and he
questioned who would take care of the 30 foot easement regarding
trash and weeds.
23. That the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, commented that
right-of-way for future Ten Mile Road improvements needs to be
dedicated as needed by the Ada County Highway District.
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, stated as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6
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
proposed 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;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101)
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7
0 0
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
(201) 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."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8
0
E
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.
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
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the 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 proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan,
once adopted, shall apply to the land and any development.
11. That since the Applicant's property is in the WARRIOR
NEIGHBORHOOD of the CURRENT Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and
zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
and do not conflict with the Rural Areas policies; it further is in
compliance with the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10
0 0
Central District Health Department and Meridian Fire Department,
and of the Ada County Highway District, Settlers and Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District, if submitted shall be met.
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., H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning
Director, Wayne Forrey, relating a school site; that the
development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require
that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development
fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de -annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11
0
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de -annexation.
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 ne met the
property shall be subject to de -annexation. nct
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
ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED � j✓,!!;'
VOTED��
VOTED
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12
0 0
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 tile 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 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 - 13
Z
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER: