Loading...
1994 05-31671 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 10, 1994: (APPROVED) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WEST ONE BANK REZONE: (APPROVED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR G.L. VOIGT ANNEXATION REQUEST: (APPROVED) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FORST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ANNEXATION REQUEST: (APPROVED) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY STACIE YBARRA: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION, 62 LOTS BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2,28 LOTS BY HOWELL CONSTRUCTION AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 153 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 2, 10 LOTS BY RONALD HENRY AND J. REECE LEAVITT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 0 0 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION, 13 LOTS BY DAN HARDEE AND TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 0 i1 L MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 10, 1994: - a.0/',c- z `� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WEST ONE BANK REZONE: wCkpprovel,�disappreve - Make recommendation to City Council.- 6 0_ 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR G.L. VOIGT ANNEXATION REQUEST: w( prove%dtsapprove -Make recommendation to City Council 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FORST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ANNEXATION REQUEST: Approvgl disapprove - Make recommendation to City Council - 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY STACIE YBARRA nFCity Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law — e-4 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION, 62 LOTS BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: mFCity Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law - ox - 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2,28 LOTS BY HOWELL CONSTRUCTION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: owCity Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law _ d` 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 153 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Approve disapprove - Make recommendation tq the City Council 9 i MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 31, 1994 The special meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Charlie Rountree at 7:00 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Will Berg, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Ray Wilder, David Couch, Wayne Forrey, John Schaffer, Stacie Ybarra, Mike Wardle, Helen Davis, David Turnbull, Don Brian, Ron Henry, Ted Hutchinson, Jim Merkle, Tammy Schaffer, Vern Almond: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 10, 1994: Rountree: Any comments, corrections, discussion? Alidjani: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes of the meeting held May 10, 1994. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WEST ONE BANK REZONE: Rountree: Any comments or corrections on the findings of fact? I will entertain a motion. Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, it is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Is there a recommendation or decision? Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 2 of fact and conclusions of law and that the property be required to meet the water/ sewer requirements, Nampa/ Meridian requirements, ACHD requirements, Uniform Building Code, fire life safety codes, Uniform Fire Code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian that the applicant meet the requirements from paragraph 10 of the conclusions regarding irrigation water. And the applicant meet the 35 foot landscape setback. Alidjani: Second Rountree: It has been moved and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR G.L. VOIGT ANNEXATION REQUEST: Rountree: Any comments, or corrections, discussion? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Hepper - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Are there any recommendations or decisions? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the recommendation that Meridian Planning & 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 that the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that the applicant and owner be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, waterways and install pressurized irrigation system 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 requirement and enter into the required development agreement and the conditions of these findings and conclusions of law. And if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. That the annexation should also be contingent on the City receiving positive results of the computer model analysis of the projects impact on our Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 3 water and sewer system. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ANNEXATION REQUEST: Rountree: Any comments? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, we have a typo on page 13, item #17, it is the "not" "net" again. Rountree: So noted, any other comments? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Shearer - Yea, Hepper - Yea, Alidjani - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning 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, specifically that the Thomas and Wurst property should be conditioned on development being conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses. And that the applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, and waterways and install pressurized irrigation system as a condition of annexation. 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 of fact and conclusions of law. And if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. Shearer: Second 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 4 Rountree: Its been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY STACIE YBARRA: Rountree: Anybody here for the applicant that would like to speak for this? 1 will now open the public hearing. Darren Ybarra, 1948 East Glenloch, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ybarra: We are applying for this application to have the opportunity to have a day care that is restrictive to 5 children. We currently have 2 of our own so we are only seeking to bring 3 children into the home as a family day care setting. Apparently there was a neighbor that filed a complaint and that neighbor doesn't seem to be here tonight. It appears from some of the text within the complaint that it was just not a complaint but also done to defemate the character of my wife. We have solicited letters from all of our neighbors, well most of our other neighbors that have also referring to all of the things, traffic, noise and all of those thing. And basically disclaiming those, if you would like we can read those if not that is fine. Rountree: You may want to submit those with your testimony. Ybarra: Okay, we would like to submit those, shall I read them? Rountree: You might read one that is representative and then submit the rest. Ybarra: This one is from Rhoda and Bob Wright, they are behind us, I am writing this letter in regards to Stacie and Darren Ybarra. I cannot believe the allegations made in reference to them. We live behind the Ybarra's and Stacie has baby sat my 2 children 3 or 4 times and I think that both Darren and Stacie are good neighbors and people. I have never left my children with any other than their grandparents and there few instances when I needed a baby sitter. I would trust Stacie with my children again if needed. And these are the people that are directly behind us and actually share the major adjoining fence. This is from Heidi Draper, I'm writing in regards to the complaint yield against Stacie Ybarra, my name is Heidi Draper and 1 live directly behind Stacie and haven't noticed any increased noise or congestion since Stacie has been babysitting in the daytime or evenings. We have never heard any noise after 8 P.M. and I have never noticed anything on the weekends. As a matter of fact there are a lot of evenings and weekends that the Ybarra's aren't at home or not around let along other kids being there. If you need any further Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 5 information please feel free to call me, 887-9652. Stacie has watched children since she was about 8 years old and we only recently had our new child who is 4 months old now. We had determined she should pursue getting a permit and doing it as a formal business. That is why we have applied for this permit to seek that. Are there any questions? Alidjani: 1 have a couple of questions. What age level are you thinking for the children that you would care for, the number of the 3 children you were saying you would have a maximum of the 3 plus the 2? Ybarra: We have one infant that is 4 months old, and a child that is 4. We would be caring for 1 more infant and 2 toddlers, which would be somewhere between 2 and 6. Alidjani: And how long are you expecting to care for the children? Ybarra: It would be from about 7 in the morning until about 5:30 or 6. We did have one letter from someone who is seeking day care that we had to decline because they only need them in evenings and weekends and we will not be operating at night. It will only be Monday through Friday. Alidjani: So it will be like 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thank you. Ybarra: Are there any other questions? Crookston: Explain your backyard and how you are going to care for them when they are in the back. Is it fenced or what is the status? Ybarra: It is fully fenced, there is a long fence across the back and we have some toys back there, a swingset and some of the little tykes, the gym, large plastic gym and a few other things. There is a small deck, and it is all in lawn, grass. There will be a total of 3 children out there playing and from the way our living room and dining room are arranged it is full windows all the way across. There are no obstructions there. She will be watching 2 infants and 3 toddlers if you count ours. Crookston: Do you have a pool? Ybarra: No swimming pool. Crookston: So you have any irrigation facilities in the back yard? Ybarra: No we don't, we water by sprinkler with a hose. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 6 Alidjani: I just thought about one more question, our professional engineer, Gary Smith, made a comment regarding the water usage will go up. It would another extra fee for that, any problem with that. Ybarra: Well, according to his estimate he based it on 5 additional children, and 2 of them are our own and are already and existing. He mentioned that ours was a little higher than standard. So, those are being counted twice, the actually only increase, the other infant that will be there, we are going to add 2 toddlers and 1 infant. The 1 infant will use none whatsoever because that child's parent's provides the formulas and such for the baby and the baby wipes and diapers. So, as far as water usage there would be none, we don't bathe them or anything else. The only additional water usage would be for the 2 toddlers and they will be using the restroom but they will not be bathing there and they will probably drink a little water. But his calculations were based on 5 so I believe that is incorrect, he probably didn't know that, that 2 of them were existing children. Alidjani: Thank you Rountree: Thank you, anybody else from the audience wish to testify on this item? I note for the record we did receive one letter, signed by 2 individuals opposed to this application. Did you folks want to give us those letters for the record? Ybarra: Those 2 people are from the same address. Rountree: If no one else wishes to testify, I will close the public hearing. Alidjani: I would like to ask a question for Mr. Smith, Gary can you let us know how you feel about what the gentleman was saying about the calculation, you calculated 5 instead of 3, how do you feel about that? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Alidjani, the only thing I had to go on is he mentioned was that it was a family day care and the ordinance limits that to 5 children. So, I based my estimation on that, presently during the winter their residence, the winter average months was 6600 gallons per month, that is equivalent to 1 single family residence (inaudible) It really gets down to a call by the City Council as to whether there needs to be another assessment made. We don't make assessments just arbitrarily, they need to be made on actual water usage wherever possible. So, it may be that they will take this under advisement and then look at water use after a period of time. Alidjani: (Inaudible) after so many thousand gallons that would automatically consider as a tool water usage? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 7 Smith: Well typically if I get to another half of an equivalent residential unit which would be about 3300 gallons above the 6500. Alidjani: So we are talking about 9,000 to 10,000 gallons? Smith: Correct. Rountree: Any other discussion? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we direct our City Attorney to draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law and also indicate the letters that are pros and cons that we received. Shearer: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION, 62 LOTS BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Rountree: Anybody here for the applicant that would like to make a presentation? Come forward and state your name and address and be sworn. No one for the applicant seems to be here this evening. Who is going to be here this evening do you know? (Inaudible response) Rountree: I will close the public hearing since there is no presentation an nobody here from the applicant to make a presentation. At such time as he arrives we will move that item to #10 spot on the agenda. ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2, 28 LOTS BY HOWELL CONSTRUCTION AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: Rountree: I will open the public hearing, is anybody here for the applicant this evening to make that presentation. That is also Jim Merkle, I will close the public hearing on that and move that to item #11. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 8 ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 153 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Rountree: I will now open the public hearing anybody for the applicant on this issue? Please come forward, state your name and address and be sworn. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, you took action a month ago on this particular project which is a 40 acre parcel located on Ustick Road approximately 1/4 mile east of Meridian Road. It lies just immediately north of the Fothergill subdivision which has been platted and is under construction currently just to the south. And lies west of the Finch Creek Subdivision and others including Cougar Creek that have been developed or are under construction to the east. We have been through the appropriate technical review meetings, discussions with your staff and with Ada County Highway District. I would like to speak to some of the features concerning the subdivision. The more notable was the fact that it lies along the Finch Lateral or in other terminology the South Slough. The Finch Lateral being the current preferred definition by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and that is fine. The project connects to Fothergill Subdivision with a connector street that ties into the same collector system through Fothergill that goes back to Meridian Road and through other connecting points in that subdivision to the south and to the east. In consideration of the design elements of it we did provide a single access point to Ustick Road in part to assist in controlling the flow of the traffic in as much as there would be a collector roadway established. The Ada County Highway District in reviewing the subdivision and the connection that it provides through that area concluded that with the control of access and the fact that there was a connector to which all of the interior traffic flow then was served did not require or concluded that there was not a need for a traffic study so no traffic study was performed. The interior system is essentially a series of loops with 2 culdesacs and then as a result of the Ada County Highway District Technical review and consideration by your staff planner, 2 other access points were requested and are shown in this, and has not incorporated into the plat in your agenda. This came about as a result of the later discussions. But it will be put into the revised preliminary plat and resubmitted to Shari Stiles. That was specifically that there be a connection point to the east and to the west out of the project to the adjacent properties for future development connections that may be required. And in part we were pleased with that requirement because right through the heart of the project is the location of the Onwieler Lateral. And what we have done in our discussions with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District is propose to bring that lateral in and along the front of the properties rather than at the back in fenced yards. And so then it would connect out through into the adjacent property and along that roadway alignment. We will have to provide an access point for Nampa 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 9 Meridian to the back lot line location of that lateral and the properties to the east. We also will provide this other street stub and this is a representation. We will work out the specific location with Shari Stiles it could be here or up here. We didn't want to create a long straight through situation by having that stub come out this direction. in fact it could not because of the platted lots adjacent to it. One of the other features that we have concentrated on is what will happen in and along the Finch Lateral. We met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and in as much as the Fothergill subdivision will be fenced at this point and the lateral comes in at this point and exits the property here. We propose to assist in implementation of the City's desire of a pedestrian and bicycle corridor and not to put this particular feature at the back of the lots where it would be hidden by the fences to make it an intrigal part of the project with the linear open space that your ordinance speaks to. Having a street adjacent to it and not putting a sidewalk on the south side of the street, but providing the area for the 8 foot bicycle path just off that right of way. That would be of necessity a single crossing but there would have been the necessity of a crossing in the subdivisions along the route as well. So what is proposed that there would be a canal access maintenance road for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on the south side where they currently service that lateral that crosses through there. Presently it goes up through this area. So we are proposing to make it a linear situation with trees adjacent to the public right of way and they concurred with that as long as the trees do not overhang the lateral itself. So we believe it provides a buffer, a green space without fencing it and making it inaccessible. And the common area or the green area will be in fact maintained by the homeowners association as will the buffer strip and the islands at the entrance of the project. So the association will be responsible for maintaining that. There are some specific things that I would like to address from the staff report provided to you. In Mr. Smith's comments he has noted some areas that we need to check on some size of lots. And those are issues that will be taken care of, they are minor just a foot or 2 here and there of an adjustment will take care of that. He also indicated that we need to be approval of the street names, we had street name approvals with 3 that we have to because of duplication come up with some additional. There is only one item of particular question or reference. I would just like to make in item #3 of Mr. Smith's comments he talks about the chord dimension of all bulb and culdesac lots need to be at least 40 feet. WE found that there was one that was not, but there was also on those a flag lot, Lot 22 - Block 2 that does have a 30 foot frontage as we understand it that does comply with the requirements as a flag lot. So we would agree with the comment with the exception of Lot 22 - Block 2. Which is located right here at the end of Addison Street at the northwest corner. We believe that complies, I just wanted to make that specific reference. I also noted in item #9 he does ask the question how will the traffic from this subdivision impact the present use of Ustick Road. The developer is donating the 45 foot right of way necessary for ACHD to accomplish the 90 foot right of way. But they felt with the access limited to the one point and the fact that it was a collector system that they did not require the traffic study. They did not feel that the impact on the present use of Ustick Road was 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 10 significant. Item #15 of Mr. Smith's notes indicate that a 12 inch diameter water main will need to be installed in Ustick Road. It is our understanding that there is not currently a water line in the road. We would like to work with Mr. Smith to consider options of providing that without necessarily having a duplicate line just one lot deep. And if we have the latitude to work with him then we have no problem with certainly addressing the spirit and intent of suggestion by Mr. Smith. Just one or 2 comments then concerning Shari Stiles report to the Commission. Alidjani: The item particularly from 1 through 16 that you did not touch you don't have a problem with? Wardle: I didn't see anything we could not comply with there correctly. In Shari Stiles comments again the items that she has requested are pretty much standard and will be addressed either in revision in the preliminary plat as a record copy as a basis for the final plat or in some written response. 1 just wanted to make note that in item #3 we have met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District they have been concepted, agreed with the ideas of the location of both the Finch Creek Lateral and the Onweiler Lateral. And we will work to help the City implement its desired pedestrian and bicycle pathway system along the Finch Creek Lateral. But I must note that we are getting some mixed signals from Nampa Meridian's reluctance and the City's desire. We hope not to be caught in the middle of that but we think what we have provided in the location and access will certainly work to the benefit of the City and residents in the subdivision as well. We do have one specific request concerning item V. You indicate, the memo indicates show minimum house size of 1350 square feet as a note on the final plat and in the covenants. When the original hearing on the application for annexation of the parcel did not address that matter. That matter came up at the conclusion of the hearing and in the commissions review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We specifically request that we be allowed to apply subdivision development ordinance section 2411 subsection D.2 which speaks to diversity. We believe that there is a diversity need in the area there for starter homes as well as for homes of a slightly larger size. We believe that the provisions of the ordinance that allow homes in the range of 1000 to 1100 square feet or 10% of the homes in that subdivision of homes in that subdivision. With another 15% in the 1100 to 1200 range, 25% in the 1200 to 1300 square foot range and then 50% in the larger. As long as they are dispersed throughout the subdivision would be in the interest of the project to achieve that diversity. I believe that Mr. Turnbull representing the Brighton Corporation here may wish to speak to that specific item. But we do request that this particular comment be modified to apply subdivision development ordinance section 2-411 subsection D.2. We do agree with her comment #8 and we will call out the landscape easement along Ustick Road as a separate lot and include that as part of the homeowners association requirement. One are of concern come up in item #9, and I guess that is the interpretation of what constitutes a block. In our design. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 11 Alidjani: I have a question, are you still referring to Shari's comments #9? Wardle: Yes I am, which states Alidjani: I don't have that, will you read it for us? Wardle: It states Block length exceed 1000 feet. And I guess I don't know what that means because we view the block length as being from the intersection to the farthest point and in no case are any of these approaching 1000 feet. If the interpretation is clear around, clearly they do that, but I suspect you have many blocks in the City that are in violation of that if that is the case. In as much as we have no culdesac length that is more than 450 feet and clearly you have duel access into the balance of these blocks I guess we are hoping we don't have to apply for a variance because we don't believe that a variance condition exists and in fact the block lengths do not exceed 1000 feet. So there needs to be a clarification of that by staff. We do agree with the rest of her comments concerning pedestrian access and to the areas and stub streets she indicates will take care of that. But we do have the pedestrian access along the Finch Creek Lateral. There is one other concern, in item #12. And this is related to the existing home that Mrs. Helen Davis who is the original property owner has on Lot 4 in Block 1. 1 will submit this to the commission, but let me just briefly speak to it. The home sits well off Ustick Road and there is a long driveway that comes down to the southerly portion of the property and into a garage. Not too many months ago Mrs. Davis improved a sun room but made a physical connection to the garage. But it has been very difficult as we tried to balance depths and sizes and so forth to incorporate that garage without creating some other unusual roadway alignments. So what we have proposed or what the developer is proposing to Mrs. Davis is that they build here a new garage connected to the home by a breezeway on the side. What it does though because of the length of the home it will create and Mrs. Davis does have a life estate for the property. It does create a situation where there will be a substandard front yard setback. And I don't, I'm not clear on whether you can acknowledge that or whether we would specifically have to apply for a variance either under provision 2-419 of the zoning ordinance or the subdivision and development ordinance section 9-612, but in any case I would like the Commission to be aware that we will be requesting a waiver, a variance for that particular front yard setback for that existing home. The home is a nice home, the garage will have to be relocated. We have considered and we will probably in the final plat the lot currently shows a depth of 128 feet, 20 of it will become the homeowners association maintained parcel. But if we take that out we can increase the lot by another 2 feet perhaps more to increase that setback. But I would like to submit that and express some concern that we had direction on how to solve this with the relocation of that garage. Rountree: Wayne, that would have to go to the City Council in the form of a variance Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 12 request. Crookston: Yes it would. Wardle: Does that require a separate application then or by reference from the Planning Commission? Crookston: It requires a separate application. Wardle: Okay, I believe the other items that have been addressed by Shari have been reviewed and we feel that either by some additional information or modification of the preliminary plat to get her a record copy that we can and will address those. And we will submit that to her within 10 days of your decision so that we know what the conditions of approval are. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any questions that the Commission might have and then I would like to turn some time to Mr. Turnbull if he chooses to take that. Rountree: Any questions of Mr. Wardle? Hepper: I have a couple, on the southern street down there next to the Finch Lateral you said there would not be a sidewalk, would there be a curb and gutter? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, yes sir there would be curb and gutter, there would be no sidewalk only on the south side where there would be a pathway system provided. Hepper: Would the pathway be paved or concrete or something else? Wardle: I believe that the intent and we will have to work with staff on this and I am not certain whether the City has a system in place and whether it would be constructed by the developer or whether that would simply be provided as an area for the City to implement the system when other components come into play. So we need to work on that, but my understanding is that it would be an 8 foot wide asphalt pathway. 1 believe that is what the system component is. Hepper: But you are not sure that you would put it in or if the City will be the one to put it in, is that correct? Wardle: That is correct we are not certain at this point. Hepper: Okay, and you said the homeowners association would maintain that area, would that be landscaped down to the waters edge or to the edge where is breaks off? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 13 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, it would be landscaped to the waters edge and maintained so there is no disturbance of the water flow. It would be a landscaped and groomed area. I suspect that the area along the south side where the Nampa Meridian might be a little less kept up because that would be a 20 foot wide gravel roadway and would be as close as we can actually design and get the necessary free board and the slopes. I believe 2 to 1 slope is the maximum that they will allow. So that will be constructed as closely to that access road as we can get it. Hepper: Okay, and then on the front there you talked about landscaping on the entry way, what did you have in mind on that? Wardle: Well we have not prepared any plans, the developer will submit a landscape plan to the staff for both the island as well as the wings along these 2 corner lots and the buffer strip along the road, but that will be submitted to staff. Hepper: Did you plan on putting a fence along there? Wardle: There would be a fence along the inside of that yes sir. Hepper: Okay, what was the setback on that house that you said was going to have, you said it was going to be a violation. Wardle: As it is currently on the drawing it is about 8 1/2 feet from the property line which would pull it about 10 1/2 feet from the back of the front block. We hope to increase that by 2 or more feet so that it will be at least 10 1/2 feet from property line perhaps more. If we can move everything a little bit southerly without taking away from the necessary dimensional standards of the lots we will, but we know that we can get at least 2 more feet, hopefully more than that. Hepper: Those are all the questions that I have. Rountree: Any other questions? Thank you, we might have you come back and respond to questions. Anybody else wishing to testify on this item? David Couch, 395 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. (End of Tape) Couch: I had about 4 items I would like to address. I am the property owner to the west, the west side of that subdivision has a slough that is approximately 6 to 8 feet deep with very vertical sides. Basically along the length of it. One of my concerns being adjacent • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 14 to that many homes with the sewer there, I think irregardless most of the subdivisions are going to have a fence around them. I still think there are children and pets that are going to work their way around that fence one way or another and then very possibly end up in that slough. That is a safety concern on my part because it is right out my back door. I would hate to be the one that rescued a pet or a child. I would like to know what they could possibly do to help on the safety of that. Another item 1 would like to address, the last meeting that was concerning this subdivision was the developers spoke and made a comment that all the lots would be compatible and similar in size to the other subdivisions in the surrounding area. Part of the subdivision is to the south, there are 10 lots that are adjacent to that subdivision. Those 10 lots range in size from 9,128 feet to around 7,000. In the preliminary plat submitted it says that the minimum lots size will 6500 square feet. If it is to be compatible with the subdivision to the south the average of those 10 lots is 7800 square feet, it would be my recommendation that the lot sizes be increased in size to be compatible with the surrounding area. The Onwieler Lateral which was mentioned on the preliminary plat it shows it going through Lot 26 which evidently has been changed. The concern there is there are 3 concrete structures almost at the boundary line of that subdivision. I guess 1 am wondering are they going to realign the Onwieler Lateral, is it going to affect those 3 concrete structures. I am wondering where is the realignment going to take place. And last, in the notes, note 6 on the subdivision plat, it says that the storm water nun off will be collected and r detained on site and or discharged into existing drain ways within or adjacent to this proposed subdivision. There is quite a bit of drainage when you get that large of an asphalt area with the roads etc. I guess I am wondering where is the drainage going to go. I haven't heard any specifics on that, I think the basic plan in the County is to encourage to keep it on site. I think those are the basic comments that I wanted to make. 1 thank you for you time. Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wish to testify? Helen Davis, 585 East Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Davis: When I sold this property my original sales agreement with Jack Gibson and Associates, and I took a lifetime estate on the home. I contacted Mr. Gibson and asked him if it would be permissible to build a sun room a connection with the house to the garage, because I fell there once and I didn't want to be on the ice again. He gave me permission to build that room. I have pictures here of the home and their (inaudible) Brighton Corporation they want to destroy my garage. 1 built that room especially to connect my house to the garage so I am not on the ice. If I had any idea that they wanted to make that change I could adjust to it easily with the garage. Brighton Corporation did not come into the picture until after this room was built with a cost of more than $20,000. 1 would like for them to change their plat so I can keep my garage where it is. I have pictures of the home and also of Ustick Road going back and also in the sales agreement, 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 15 it was that they would fence the home, the garage and the yard with fencing comparable to the rest of the development. And also that they would asphalt my driveway from Ustick road to the garage allowing trench space and parking. My request is that I be allowed to keep my garage where it is. Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify? David Turnbull, 12301 West Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Turnbull: I will just address some of these points as they come along, I guess I should actually go in reverse order and address Mrs. Davis's testimony. In fact Mrs. Davis is correct and we will abide by the agreement she originally entered into with Mr. Davis in regards to fencing her property and all of those kinds of things. I have not had the chance to meet Mrs. Davis, one of my employees, Mike Tanner, has met with her a couple of time. And initial indications were that we had some kind of an agreement or some way to resolve this garage issue. The garage as it sits right now, it is a cinder block garage it has a metal roof and what we have been proposing to Mrs. Davis is to replace it with a structure all be it in a different location, but one that we could work out with her that would be satisfactory to her and of a similar construction to her house instead of the cinder block and metal roof. If we can't work that out we will certainly work around Mrs. Davis and we want to make sure that she is happy. We don't want to infringe upon her territory or cause her any discomfort or grief. We intend to make Mrs. Davis happy and I don't know if that is something we can do here at this meeting tonight. We have placed a couple of calls to Mrs. Davis's attorney Jack Riddlemoser, I think he has been injured in some sort of a horseback riding accident and hasn't been at work regularly. So we haven't been able to make that contact at this time to help get that resolved. I just wanted to state that we will work out the situation with Mrs. Davis to her satisfaction. Mr. Couch, made some points that I will address and some of them relate to drainage which I am not the engineer and the engineering firm I'm sure will work out the drainage details. The Onweiler Lateral will be conveyed through the property, it will be tiled ditch, if concrete structures need to be rebuilt or relocated they will be. That drainage will continue across the property. Compatibility with lot sizes surrounding areas, I think Mr. Couch has picked out maybe a few lots in the Fothergill Subdivision, but there are many lots in the subdivision that are a smaller size. I might note that the Fothergill subdivision hasn't allocated any open space. We have approximately 2 1/2 acres to be set aside for the greenbelt area. So I think that should have some bearing, we are also planning on landscaping that as was asked to our representative Mr. Wardle, we do plan on doing a first class job in that area. We don't know in the long run whether that becomes the City's greenbelt. If the City has a Parks and Recreation department that would intend on taking over maintenance of that. We don't know until such time that it would be the responsibility of the owners association. Irrigation and drainage that is on the west side of the property that separates from Mr. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 16 Couch's property, it is a situation that is already there. We intend to fence our property away from that so that it would not have direct access off of our property to it. But I can't prevent somebody from coming around Ustick road and jumping into it from Ustick Road, I don't suppose, I can't cover it from all directions. The berm landscaping area that we have on the front of Ustick Road would be landscaped to a very high degree, I think if you look around at some of the projects that we've done, we do a first class job on them, on our frontages, on arterial and entrys. Finally, I guess as Mr. Wardle said in the Planning & Zoning after the public hearing was closed and in fact it was the next meeting where the findings of fact were considered. The provision was added to make the minimum size of homes in the project 1350 square feet or greater. Just reading from the housing goal statement from the Comprehensive Plan documents, economic development housing goal statement provide a full cost range of desirable housing for individuals and families who have chosen Meridian as their home. And then it says under that under policies, approve quality housing projects that meet the needs of all economic levels. We have done projects in Meridian where we were allowed the 1000 square foot homes, 1100 square foot homes and so on in an R-4 zone in fact and we elected to maintain a 1300+ square foot minimum in there. We also, you will have before you here in the next few weeks the preliminary plat on the golf course expansion which we are doing and which we are contributing 50 acres to the City for the golf course project and that will be an upscale project, probably one of the more upscale project, probably one of the more upscale projects in Meridian. So, I think we are too trying to offer a variety of economic housing levels and it would be nice to think we can do all golf course projects with $150,000 - $200,000 homes but we have to realize that it constitutes a very minor portion of this market segment and if we can't find anyplace, we think this is an appropriate place. We plan on doing some nice homes but something that approaches the entry level. I would say entry level probably starts as tow as a 1000 square feet, I don't propose to do anything that small but I would propose to do something smaller than 1350 square foot level. So, those are my comments. Alidjani: Mrs. Davis has shown interest that she doesn't want any changes according to the original agreement and she had with you. You said you will try to make her happy, would you explain to me are you going to change your preliminary plat, or if it is going to stay that way the garage is on the road. Turnbull: Well, if we can't make her happy we will have to make a modification to the preliminary plat. Alidjani: In which respect can you say how you are going to change that modification? Turnbull: I probably couldn't tell you right now until we submit a design. We will make an appropriate modification and bring it back for a variation to the preliminary plat. And I have 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 17 no objection to making that a condition to the preliminary plat. Alidjani: The problem we have is we are going to ask for findings of fact tonight to be made and the preliminary plat that you modify later on is (inaudible). Turnbull: Well, it would be, it would not be in my view a significant variation which would change the basic concept of the overall preliminary plat. We would just have to work around her. What we are proposing to do is to provide her something at least as good if not better. And if we can come to terms we prefer to proceed further on this design. Alidjani: Thank you Rountree: Thank you, anybody else wish to testify? Mr. Wardle do you want to address some questions? Wardle: Yes Mr. Chairman I would, and I do agree what we have thought about options and the options that we, if we need to make a modification to that preliminary plat is not by wholesale change. There is a way to do that and to keep her home and garage intact if it was necessary. But if that can be done in some type of a clause that is possible with the City we would appreciate that. One thing that needs to be noted however in your staff recommendations and the Ada County Highway District are a little concerned about Mrs. Davis's stated concern of keeping her access from Ustick Road. She would like, let me just illustrate that. I guess the way that exhibit, currently she must drive all the way to the back of her property and into the garage, some 130 feet or so. If this property or if this parcel is bermed and landscaped to have a singular access point of a driveway into the Ustick Road right of way could be very dangerous to Mrs. Davis herself. The options of course with the driveway accessible from the interior either in this configuration or some other configuration would give her direct access to her driveway, would certainly be safer and I don't know whether the Ada County Highway District frankly will approve that. And I understand her desire to maintain her address and perhaps the postal service will allow her to maintain her Ustick Road address, but provide the mail to her from the residential street on the interior. That would be one concern, she is requesting to do, to allow her to keep that, your staff recommendation is that it not be provided. We will as Mr. Turnbull noted conform to the requirements of not only the City but the Ada County Highway District and the Irrigation companies with regard to drainage. The drainage will be handled appropriately and discharged only to where it is authorized to be discharged. It is a little difficult to consider how total safety can be addressed to the slough and as much as that is on Mr. Couch's property, there are a lot of waterways and areas that are accessible and in fact the concept of providing access around the Finch Creek Lateral up and down the system means that there will be access and we don't know of any way that can be totally eliminated. I understand the concern but perhaps that is something that at some future 9 . Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 18 point when Mr. Couch develops his property that slough area can be covered if it is not suitable for an amenity feature. I don't have any other comments Mr. Chairman unless you have questions. Rountree: Thank you, anybody else wish to testify? Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: Well, I wasn't planning on talking to you tonight so I am not prepared. But after listening to everything that is going on I can't help but to state my concerns. And when Mr. Wardle said that it was determined that there was no reason to have a traffic study because of the comments from Ada County I believe or somebody that it would not have a significant impact on traffic in the area. We are talking 153 lots of another subdivision, and you all know how many subdivisions are going on in that area. And all the traffic is going to be, well you have 153 lots and they figure 10 trips a day for each lot, going down to Ustick and down Locust Grove and going to the new shopping center on the corner. I can't believe there isn't any impact there. All of these subdivisions going in one after the other, 100 here, 200 there, it just keeps going and going. I am kind of wondering when it is all going to stop or if it is going to stop and what we are going to do with all the traffic. If we are just going to keep going until we get a major traffic gridlock worse than what we have already and then let Ada County catch up to us. Or we can do something about it now and let the highway system catch up. Another concern I have is the variance he is asking for on the housing size, we made our ordinances for the City to keep the plan of development that we have here now 1350 and all we are doing by providing a variance is going down hill. It is my opinion but we have already created a dumping ground for R-8 developments. City Eagle says no to a lot of these they want their open spaces, they are getting nice developments, the higher end. It is a beautiful city over there, it is getting to be a nice City and Meridian is all these clustered R-8 developments, 10 years down the road they are going to look like hell with all the fencing that is going on that is going to fall down. These homeowners associations I don't know how long they are going to be intact with all of these new development. Who is going to take care of all the property that is between them and the new highway. And like we already have on Locust Grove, that is one of my concerns. Another concern that I have is for the open ditch and the waterways and we all want greenbelt and we want nice little streams running through our greenbelts, but we don't live on the Boise River. And any open waterway that is used for irrigation is nothing but a problem. And it is going to be a problem, its going to create a place for kids to play in and when they care of it when they are mowing it and they are trimming it with their weed eater, the commercial people that come out there and take care of the greenbelt all the trimming is going to go right in that ditch. You can't help keep them out there when you are throwing your trimmings around. That is just a concern that I have, but I believe those are all of my concerns. 9 • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 19 Rountree: For now? Brian: For now. Alidjani: And you said you were not prepared. Brian: No, I save my preparedness for the City Council. Hepper: Don, what are your thoughts to the widening of the Locust Grove Road? You are concerned about the traffic and all the subdivisions going in, what are your thoughts about widening the road? Brian: I know they are going to widen the road, they are planning on widening the road and its coming. But I think with all the subdivisions coming in widening the road isn't going to help any. I still have to wait for the traffic going north before I can south, unless I can get a stoplight put at the end of my driveway, which I doubt. It will handle more traffic, but I am still going to be sitting out there waiting for all the traffic coming down from light to light on each end, because I imagine there will be a light Ustick. Hepper: But in relation to this subdivision you talked about the impact of traffic the need for a traffic study and the 153 houses and stuff like that. Don't you think the widening of roads will alleviate some of that problem? Brian: I believe it will alleviate some of the problems but I don't think the roads are going to be done in time. Just like Eagle Road was supposed to be started and done and 1994, and last I heard it was 1996 before it is going to get started. Hepper: I agree they have a (inaudible) that is a problem. Brian: I see the same thing happen for Locust Grove, it is projected to start 1994 and last I heard was land acquisition was 1995 and construction starting was 1996. We are talking 2 years down the road after all of these subdivisions are filled up and people are using that road. That is my concern, but I do think the widening and the improvements are going to improve the traffic system. I don't think we are going to get the system the highway department to act fast enough. The last 2 years I have been coming down here I have been hearing the same thing about, well we approve the subdivisions and Ada County's responsibility to provide. Shearer: The reason that I would guess they didn't do a traffic study on this because traffic studies on these normally are in the subdivision themselves. When it gets to the mile roads, those roads are already planned to take care of the impact. As each of these • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 20 houses are built there is an impact fee which goes to ACHD which they will fix those main roads. Until a lot of these houses are built they won't get a lot of impact fees. However this impact fee is only 2 years only now and so up until a couple years ago we didn't even have that so there was even more lag than there is today. I understand what you are saying. Brian: The argument I have is not the lack of traffic study it is the idea that there is no impact to justify it. My opinion is that traffic studies don't do any good anyway because they are hired by developers to do the study and to make. Shearer: Well, the study for those are for the subdivision roads themselves. I mean it doesn't take any study on Ustick, we all know Ustick is eventually going to be a 5 lane, like all the rest of the mile roads. They are all set up that way. So, there is really nothing to study there other than when the impact fees are available the road will be widened. Brian: So the additional 1500 trips down Ustick everyday is not a significant increase? Shearer: Sure it is, but we are not going to build a road, nobody is going to build a road in the United States until the people are there. The people come first and then the roads. Brian: Can't we plan ahead, isn't they why we are here. Shearer: If we did we would have roads going out to the dessert with nobody living out there, like they do in Russia, of course over there they can make you live out there. All of these concerns they are growing pains and you are right there are going to be growing pains, once it is all houses in that entire area that entire section almost is subdivided now. And when those houses are sold that impact fee is going to be there to do those roads around it. And it will happen. Brian: Well I hope down the road when we get this all developed, that whole section gets developed we can say we did the right thing. Shearer: I hope so too. Rountree: Thanks Don, anyone else wish to testify? For the record we received one letter on this particular item in opposition to the proposed subdivision preliminary plat. If there is no more testimony I will close the public hearing. Discussion. Alidjani: Mr. Smith, I have a question how many subdivisions out there are adjacent to it that (inaudible) do they have a minimum of 1350 for the square footage of the building or are they ? You don't know, does anybody know? • a Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 21 Rountree: I believe the discussion related to this particular item, the subdivision was going to be consistent with Fothergill in terms of house sizing. It is as far as the R-8 zoning and I think Tim's question was would it be compatible with those adjacent to it in Fothergill. I believe Tim came up with the figure of 1350. Hepper: That is what we have all the way down Ustick there. Rountree: And that in fact is a condition of the annexation and the findings of fact have been acted on by the Commission. Hepper: Chamberlain Estates, all of those down there (inaudible). Hunter Point is one of the biggest ones in there it is 1350 so that would be consistent with what is in there. Rountree: Any other discussion? Alidjani: One more, Mr. Smith also the developer asked for an exception on #3 on your comments. (Inaudible) he had or do you want to stick with your plan and do it the way it is? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Alidjani, the only thing I was referring to is what the ordinance requires. Either the chord dimensions on the bulb lots or culdesac lots (inaudible) or they must request a variance. The one lot that Mr. Wardel pointed out as being a flag lot doesn't vaguely resemble a flag and that is the definition in the ordinance. So a 30 foot frontage on that lot is acceptable according to the ordinance. Rountree: Do I have a motion? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we ask our City Attorney to draw up findings of fact Rountree: We don't need findings it is a preliminary plat. Alidjani: I would make a recommendation that they would have the concerns of Mrs. Davis and some kind of resolution that she is happy, also that all the criteria and the comments that Gary had and Shari had to be met to their satisfaction. And that the minimum lots are to be 1350. Shearer: Second Rountree: Would you repeat your motion please. 0 i Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 22 Alidjani: My motion is to approve the preliminary plat with those conditions that I have stated. Rountree: Okay, that motion has been moved and second to recommend the preliminary with the conditions so stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 2, 10 LOTS BY RONALD HENRY AND J. REECE LEAVITT: Rountree: Anyone here for the applicant to make a presentation? Ronald Henry, 6301 Charleston Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Henry: Mr. Chairman, Commission members this is a proposed subdivision which is an addition to Fawcett's Meadows No. 1 which was approved last month. This is a small subdivision of 10 lots and it is directly south of the #1 subdivision. The total piece of property is 5 acres it is located at 2240 South Meridian Road. What is planned for the 10 lots is really an extension of Fawcett's Meadows No. 1, in other words there are going to be all the utilities connected and extended to these lots. The pressurized irrigation system will be extended to these lots. So basically it will be just a small extension. Some of the comments I might address by Gary Smith, item #3, what provisions are being made to pipe irrigation and drainage ditches across the property. Basically we are going to discontinue those ditches are we are going to provide pressurized irrigation system to the entire parcel. Item #5, submit proposed restrictive covenants, these covenants will be the same as I have submitted in the first subdivision. The storm drainage system and collection system will be an extension of the first phase. Item #8, there probably will have to be a variance or there appears to be a variance for the setbacks of the buildings on Lot 9 and 10 - Block 4. 1 guess we just have to apply for a variance on that. The sewer service for Lot 10 will most likely be extended down Fawcett Avenue and to Lot 10 across lot 9 1 think that is the best way to do that. I think that is really about all I have. Rountree: Any questions? Thank you, anyone wish to testify on this application? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Is there a recommendation, motion? We needs findings. Shearer: I move we have the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 23 Hepper: Second Rountree: Its been moved and seconded for findings of fact, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAMBLE WOODS SUBDIVISION, 13 LOTS BY DAN HARDEE AND TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: Rountree: I will now open the public hearing, anyone from the applicant here tonight? Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, (inaudible). This has a slight modification since it was originally submitted to the City, the modifications came after our meeting with the Ada County Highway District and technical review. But the Highway District recommended that we provide a stub street to the west of the property for this development and this design reflects that change. This is still a 13 lot subdivision, we are asking for annexation into the City of Meridian, the Meridian City limits currently are located at Ustick Road which is the south boundary of our property. The parcel itself is about 4.19 acres we are asking for an R-4 zoning designation when this is annexed into the City. That would provide 4 lots which are in excess of 8,000 square feet. We have designed this proposal so that the lots exceed that minimum lot requirement and in fact the lots are exceed 8300 square feet. Those lots that are the smallest are long the north side of the parcel, outside the right of way for Five Mile Creek. Again this was redesigned following a technical review meeting with the Ada County Highway District. We believe that we have addressed most of the issues they have raised. This will be serviced by Meridian water and Meridian sewer. I believe the sewer connection will be through a subdivision which is later on your agenda. We believe this qualifies for annexation because it is contiguous to the current city limits. What we are proposing is consistent with the existing and proposed development in that that area. We have gone through the comments from Mr. Smith with regard to the subdivision itself and Mr. Smith's comments were made with the previous design. He has been provided with a copy all be it a little late because of the timing between the Ada County Highway District meeting and the time we could work it into the schedule with our grasp to get the changes made, however we did provide a copy to Mr. Smith. With regard to Mr. Smith's comments we feel that we can or have complied with all of the requirements that Mr. Smith has presented. We will submit any other documentation that he has asked for. The revised plat shows the refereed benchmark as required in #5. We show the existing and proposed utilities and the sanitary sewer connection will be in conjunction with the Hartford Subdivision as I have indicated r 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 24 is later on your agenda. The flood hazard X is taken from the present flood insurance rate maps for Ada County. That has been denoted on this, this is just a zone X which has the same potential for flooding as any other parcel. It is not included in any type of identified flood hazard area. We have done away with, item 10 Mr. Smith made reference to a flag lot. With the redesign that flag lot has gone away. We have designed this so that all of the chord lengths are at least 40 feet. So that they do comply with the requirements or have at least 80 feet of frontage on the proposed public street. The property to the west is not owned by the developer and has not been part of this development application. It is presumed because of the stub street to the west and then a stub street to the east which is proposed in Hartford that the owner will at some point come in with a development application. Which will be tied into both of these developments. We believe that we can provide landscaping along Ustick Road which will provide a barrier. These lots are large enough that it can be accomplished without effecting the usable size of those particular lots. With regard to Ms. Stiles comments from the zoning department. Again I believe that these comments were prepared with the previous plat proposal. We have provided the stub street to the west and we have provided a sewer easement location at the end of the location to the east for future development should that particular parcel come in. It is a rather odd shaped parcel, 1 don't know how that one is ultimately going to develop. I believe the house that is on that parcel is located almost in the center of the property. But we are providing the opportunity of extending sewer through that through an easement. If Mr. Smith needs any changes to that easement we can accommodate those changes. We will provide the note concerning the direct lot access onto Ustick Road as required. Five Mile Creek itself, item 3, is not on our property. There is a strip of property between the northern boundary of our property and Five Mile Creek. It is my understanding that the property belongs to the owner of the property which also lies north of Five Mile Creek. In talking with the developer, we understand that the City of Meridian may want some type of link or pathway connection from this development into a greenbelt which may be proposed along Five Mile Creek. We believe that we can accommodate that if the City of Meridian makes that a condition of approval. 1 believe we can provide the linkage there that is requested. With item #4, the location of the prevailing winds in relation to the wastewater treatment plant, I believe that if the plant is being operated under the guidelines and operated correctly I don't believe there tends to be an odor problem from the wastewater treatment plant. We will add the note it is for single family dwellings we will also include the minimum square footage requirement for dwellings (End of Tape) This is only a 13 lot subdivision, in speaking with the developer he is really not intending for there to be a homeowners association. I am not sure how we would address item #7 with Shari's concern about the homeowners association to maintain a landscape lot. Again the utility locations have been noted on the revised plat. And I believe we can comply with these conditions as they are presented. Again I think this is typically of what is developing in that particular area. We can meet the conditions that staff is recommended and we ask for your favorable recommendation on this request. Are there any questions from the 9 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 25 Commission? Crookston: I have a question, on this small plat, what is this area north here next to Five Mile? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crookston that hatched area is the identifying location of the flood hazard area for Five Mile Creek. It is labeled as zone X on the flood hazard maps. Which use to be called the 500 year flood plain. Crookston: There is not an easement along here? Hutchinson: Not that I am aware of, that line is the location of the flood hazard as identified by the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA. Crookston: Thank you Rountree: Any other questions? Hepper: It states on the Highway District stuff here that you are to provide a stub street to the east and to the west. I see that you did the one to the west have you conferred with them are they happy with this. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hepper, we, at the technical review meeting that was discussed and they were agreeable not to require stub streets to the east. I believe Ms. Stiles was at that Meeting and we recognized that there would probably need to be some type of method to get the sewer line across there. And that is why we provided this sewer line easement. But, the Highway District was not going to require that extension further to the east. Hepper: I have another question on Shari Stiles comments on #7, you kind of glossed over that real quick, on the landscaped lots out front. In the past where some of these subdivisions have had many lots fronting the street, they required a homeowners association so that we don't have many different types of fences and many different people trying to maintain one person mows one day and one person mows a week later and you get all different kinds of things. Where there are only 2 lots and one is on each side of the street I'm wondering if it would be possible if you didn't want to set a homeowners association to at least do the landscaping, put a fence, do all the stuff and then have that possibly part of the homeowners association to maintain that. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, commissioner Hepper, the developer has indicated that would be a possibility that the improvements be made by the developer and then simply 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 26 maintained by those 2 homeowners. Hepper: 1 think we need to address exactly what those improvements will be. Would you be willing to put up a fence along, you know a fence and a berm and landscaping is that what we are talking about? Hutchinson: We think a fence and berming would be appropriate along that given the nature of the traffic that would be along Ustick Road. Hepper: I don't know how the other Commissioners feel, I think where there is only one property owner on each side of the street, if you wanted to eliminate the homeowners association and have those property owners maintain those, their lot and the landscape area adjacent to it, to me that would be fine. I think we do, because that is a subdivision from the street you are not going to know the difference from that subdivision from any of the others on down the street. I think we do need to have some continuity along there. Hutchinson: When we saw the comment in the requirement for a berm, and landscape along that was an excellent idea that we can comply with that requirement. Hepper: And landscaping would consist of lawn, and trees and shrubs? Hutchinson: Yes Rountree: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone wishing to testify on this proposal. John Schaffer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schaffer: 1 am the land owner directly to the west of this subdivision that is proposed. I have heard that Ada County does require that access road through to the west which abuts my property. I guess some of the questions I have, what would prevent foot traffic from the subdivision through my 4+ acres to the proposed subdivision to the west. That would be one question I have, whether Ada County would provide some kind of a barrier to prevent foot traffic. Shearer: Is your place fenced? Schaffer: No it is not, it is open at this time. At this time I do not which to develop the property. I guess another question 1 have is the subdivision, I guess there is a proposed pathway along the Five Mile Drainage. I have not seen a copy of the Comprehensive Plan, I don't know whether that would be to the south or north side of Five Mile Drainage. I don't know if anybody in here can answer that question or not at this time. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 27 Rountree: It is conceptual at this point. Schaffer: I guess what I would ask is if there is a proposed type pathway there would be some type of an access from subdivisions to that point for future use if it does develop. And will there be a fence line along the canal also for the future development of the pathway through there. One other question that came up the 2 homeowners that are going to take care of the street side, an irrigation problem would come on that also. Who would maintain the irrigation of that system out front. Also at this time I have not seen anything on the proposed irrigation system that feeds through this subdivision to my adjacent property. Will there be a head gate put in at that point? And another question I have, it does have the minimum square footage of the structure requirements by ordinance what are is the requirement for minimum square footage? Rountree: 1400 square feet. Schaffer: There is also another item here about restrictive covenants, there was nothing I guess addressed on them. I think that is all I have for questions. Shearer: Your irrigation ditch runs right next to the road? Schaffer: Yes it does, the irrigation right now comes across Ustick Road approximately 10 feet on the southwest comer of this subdivision proposed and then it feeds to the west to furnish this property that I own. One other thing I would like to know is the sewer hook up, how do they propose to go about making this connection through also to the other subdivision and what kind of impacts would be with that also. Rountree: We can direct those questions to the developer. Anyone else wish to testify? Hutchinson: With response to some of Mr. Schaffer's concerns. The Highway District has required the stub street to the west. And I believe they are also requiring a stub street to the east out of the Hartford Subdivision. However to prevent foot traffic until that is, until Mr. Schaffer is ready to develop and that street goes through the developers is willing to place a fence along that to prevent any foot traffic from encroaching into Mr. Schaffer's property. Also, he asked about a fence along the canal, I believe Five Mile Creek is a natural waterway and there is no fencing required along that one. Then with regard to the irrigation, Mr. Schaffer's irrigation ditch which does run along the front of our parcel that will be piped through so that Mr. Schaffer will continue to have access to the water for which he has the water right. Then with regard to the sewer, if an agreement cannot be reached with Mr. Schaffer to come through his property with the sewer line the developer has been in tough with Mr. Kaywood the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District concerning the ability to place the sewer line to come up the property boundary on the west and then Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 28 cross on the north side and then connect back down with the Hartford piece which is to the west here. But hopefully we will be able to work something out here with Mr. Schaffer to provide the best route for that particular sewer line. Are there any further questions that I might answer for you? Rountree: Thank you. Hepper: I have a question real quick before you leave. You had a question about the street stub that is coming into his property, I would assume the homeowners or him would fence their properties, however the street stub would be a county road. Would you have any objections to placing a fence across the end of that street to keep kids and. Shearer: He just said he would. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hepper we would with the Highway District's approval we would have no problem with fencing that. Rountree: Anymore testimony? Schaffer: Not to cause any problems, the flood plain also along Five Mile Drainage, when I propose to build on this property I was denied the right to build on the flood plain by Ada County I was wondering how this might be addressed. One rules one way and one goes another, I would just like to know how we could address that. Rountree: Thank you, anybody else wish to testify? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. I will ask that question of Gary about the flood plain. The difference between our ordinance and the County. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Planning & Zoning members, there isn't any difference. The Ada County flood plain ordinance was drafted some time before the City's ordinance was drafted. FEMA -FIRM maps were developed based on engineering studies, hydrology engineering studies on the streams. And lines were drawn showing the (inaudible) and these boundaries vary as you traverse the length of the drainage. And they vary based upon downstream restriction more particularly where the streams cross roadways. Typically the pipes that are under sized to pass under (inaudible) that produces the zone AE flood plain. In some instances and I checked the Ada County map against this particular piece of property and it does not have a flood plain AE on the property. It has a flood plain A which is equivalent to flood plain that has a frequency of 500 years or equivalent to a 100 year flood hazard depth less than 1 foot. So it is called, is designated different than AE, which is a flood plain boundary requiring limitations to building as far as elevation goes. On Mr. Schaffer's property I don't know what that flood plain boundary L7 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 29 looks like there but what I am saying is that the boundaries do move in and out from the bank of the ditch based upon downstream conditions. It is possible if it exists or does exist as a flood plain boundary on his property, (inaudible). While I am here I would like to address a couple of issues if I may. One thing that, and I will say this for the record and also for everyone's information, but one thing in the past that has happened for one reason or another things have fallen through the cracks. On, between what is submitted to the City Council for final approval and what the staffs recommendation might be. And the Mayor has informed me and Shari Stiles that from this point forward nothing will get to the City Council unless all of the staff conditions, recommendations have been addressed, either agreed upon as accepted or modified to our agreement. That is all the "i's" will be dotted and all the 'Ts" will be crossed or it doesn't get to City Council. The sewer line that serves this property apparently is going to cross Mr. Schaffer talked about it and Mr. Hutchinson will cross a piece of property of private property. Which will require a 20 foot wide easement. I think some study needs to be given to all of the properties along here including the subdivision yet to be heard to the west as to how this sewer is going to cross Five Mile Creek. I don't want to see a series of crossings if they can be made to cross Five Mile Creek to get to the trunk line which is on the north side. And, if we are starting to talk about another lift station on the subdivision yet to be heard tonight then 1 think we need to start talking about something else. But the sewer is an issue, which is hasn't been resolved the stub to the east as far as the sewer is concerned cannot go through an easement. It needs to go through an accessway. I don't know what the disposition of the property to the east is, how big it is, what its development potential is. I haven't researched that. As far as the operation of City Sewer, I think Mr. Hutchinson needs to realize and maybe he does, his comment maybe wasn't totally appropriate but the Wastewater Treatment plant treats human waste and industrial and commercial waste. We have received over the length of time that plant has been in operation numerous awards for its operation. And what 1 am trying to do is to let the buyer beware that the treatment plant is there. It has been there since 1979 and it will be there for quite a while. Every once in a while we will have some sludge that we have to put into the drying beds out of the digestors, particularly in the winter when we can't haul it. The flame on the methane burner may inadvertanly extinguish. The water seal in the floating digester cover may be lost inadvertanly, when this happens it is corrected as fast as it can be corrected, but there is still a possibility of an odor escaping from the treatment plant. And there is at time a northwesterly wind. All of the properties that are adjacent to this treatment plant or moderately adjacent as I mentioned before numerous times need to be aware that the treatment plant is there. It has been for 15 years and it is scheduled to continue to be there. And I just wanted to make sure that was part of the record again. As Mr. Johnson commented when Dakota Ridge came before this body and City Council and he runs a dairy farm, they raise cattle, there are flies, and smells at times and if there are any complaints he doesn't want to hear them. And I am not going to go that far because that is our business, we need to take care of it and we plan to but it is there and we do treat E 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 30 waste and there are occasionally odors that come out of that treatment process. That is all I have, do you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them. Rountree: You talked about the plant situation and how to (inaudible) of buyer beware, do you have any suggestions other than it being in the official record and a notation on the plat once it is approved, an item in the restrictive covenants. Smith: I don't have any suggestions, I know my standing up here and saying this is not going to (inaudible) from taking place, but I wanted to say it anyway. Rountree: Any questions? Shearer: I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Hepper: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to have findings of fact and conclusions prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION, 62 LOTS BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Rountree: I will now open the public hearing, anyone hear from the applicant? Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I apologize for my earlier absence. In my packet I did not receive ACHD's final comments and they have changed somewhat. I would like to pass them out to you if I could. You could turn to the second to the last page, it kind of shows the proximity of this particular proposal in relationship to the surrounding area. This proposal is located at the northeast corner of Ustick and Ten Mile road, right across the street from your sewage treatment plant. This application is for 20 acre annexation and R-4 zoning with a preliminary plat which includes 57 lots. This is about 2.9 lots per acre. Access to this subdivision is proposed from Ustick road and the entrance street will align in accordance with the Candlelight subdivisions future access road to Ustick. We are proposing a stub street to the east, at the north east corner as shown on the preliminary plat. This will provide vehicular access to the east in the future Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 31 whenever that particular landowner and if he decides to develop. And also provide sewer service to the area to the east. We met with ACHD on May 20th regarding this proposal and they approved it as proposed and that is what the packet I gave will include. All the street in the subdivision will be built to the Highway District Standards with 50 foot of right of way, 36 foot streets and 5 foot sidewalks as required by the City of Meridian. Water will be extended to the subdivision from existing lines in Ustick Road. Regarding the sewer which Mr. Smith spoke to earlier, we are proposing to provide sewer to this subdivision and probably to all the property on the south side of Five Mile Drain and north of Ustick which right now are not severable via a lift station, sewage lift station located on the northeast corner of this subdivision and that will either be shown in one of 3 locations. In this location as shown or possibly in this location whichever is more practical when we get to the final design period. This sewer lift station will also serve the property to the east of this development. A lift station in my opinion is necessary in this instance because of the City's existing Five Mile Trunk sewer which is located on the north side of the drain. Let me turn this over for you, The highlighted area indicates the (inaudible) Five Mile Drain located in this area right there. The City's Five Mile Trunk Sewer is on the north side of that drain this proposal is on the south side of the drain. The existing sewer on the north side is not deep enough to gravity sewer underneath the drain and into it. It was installed some 15 years ago and for whatever reason it was not put as low as it needs to be for this particular property to serve it. One idea also to get around a lift station is possibly to raise the sewer up and suspend it across the middle of the drain, I have seen that done in some instances. In this case we have talked to Nampa Meridian Irrigation district and they are not keen on that idea. In fact they want a certain amount of clearance above the high water mark of the drain. Which in this case because of the flood way, flood plain would put that so high that you could not serve the area to the south. So the only other way would be by a lift station. If that was the alternative which is acceptable to the City I would recommend that everybody on the south side of the drain that is in the sane predicament we are get together and go in on it. So, there is only one crossing, one facility to maintain instead of numerous. We are proposing pressurized irrigation per the City's wishes in this proposed subdivision. A couple of things 1 would like to address in Mr. Smith's comments, item #1, 1 would like to comment we will either comply with or in writing respond to each and everyone of his and Ms. Stiles comments. However I would like to go through them one by one, item #1 and 2 we can provide that information Gary requested in both of those items. Item 3, is a comment, item 3 recommends include the lot and existing house as part of the subdivision. As you can see the out parcel is part of the annexation request but is not part of the preliminary plat request, however, we will modify the preliminary plat to include that house and that lot into the subdivision. However, the access for that particular house will continue we are proposing to be from Ten Mile road. When we, and you can look at this in the ACHD comments when we addressed that with them they have no problem with that particular house to have access on Ustick. Also, he says provide continuation of street improvements across the frontage. Wp ^^�� ^PPd to dedicate the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 32 right of way and provide the improvements and the landscape buffer if we can. Item #4, he wants to talk about the Five Mile Creek, the topography on the other side that I showed you shows where the Five Mile Creek is located. The property on both sides of the drain is owned by the same property owner to the north of us. Item #5, He asked about an above creek crossing for sanitary sewer, I have already addressed that and that is why we are proposing a lift station. Item #6, the irrigation ditch which crosses the project will be piped and also utilized in the pressurized irrigation system for the subdivision. Item 7 through 10 these items will be provided to Mr. Smith for his information and his files. Regarding item 11 and Gary already spoke to this regarding the previous application. The applicant is aware of the vicinity of sewage treatment plant, and he will take precautions whether by a note on the plat or in the covenants. Take precautions to ensure potential residents are aware of its proximity. And I'm not sure we can do much more than that. The City's comprehensive plan for this particular area shows here is the piece of property right here, here is the treatment plant your comprehensive plan which was just adopted by the City identifies this whole area as single family residential and that is what we are proposing. Regarding the comments in your packet from Shari Stiles, the Planning & Zoning Administrator, her first comment Block 2 is over 1000 feet long, that is correct we will be applying for a variance. One way to get rid of the requirement of a variance would be to provide a stub street. We can't really provide a stub street anywhere along here it isn't practical, it is just a sliver of ground (inaudible). If we do provide a stub street it would be all the way to the west. (Inaudible) that would still leave us in excess of 1000 feet so A is the applicants intention to before Council submit for a variance request. We are not proposing a stub street to the north anywhere along that whole vicinity and the reasons being that particular triangular piece is kind of a no man's land, if that particular landowners wants to sell to a developer and they come in and develop that he can easily bring a street in off Ten Mile Road and culdesac. Meet the requirements of the maximum length of a culdesac set by the City and provide lots off that culdesac without having an access from us. We are providing a pedestrian access at the east end of the subdivision which would connect to your proposed pathway plan. That access would be over the top of the sewer lot. Again in the Highway Districts comments they address that and they are not requiring, they did not say yes or no they just said they are not requiring that stub street to the north. Item 2, the existing house I have addressed, it is in the annexation it is not shown on the preliminary plat, but we are modifying that to include that and you can make that a condition of the approval. Item 3, which she talks about direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Ustick, we will put the note on the plat stating that it is prohibited to Ustick but we will leave that one particular lot on Ten Mile to have access on Ten Mile Road which I have already addressed. Items 3 through 10 we will provide Shari with a response to each of those items for her record in writing. In conclusion I request that you approve this annexation and preliminary plat application this evening and if you have any questions I will be glad to try and answer them. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 33 Shearer: Don't we have a sewer line in Ten Mile Road? Merkle: Not in this vicinity, your sewer line comes, everything to the south of Ustick Road I believe in your facility plan drains into the Nine Mile Trunk Line which is further to the south and west. We even tried to run a line back from about a 1/4 west of this back up Ustick and into this project to maybe possibly drain it into there so we could eliminate the lift station, but as you can see Ustick Road down to the north side of this property there is about 8 feet of (inaudible). So we possibly could get this piece but in no way could we gravity this piece. So, if you are going to have a lift station if that is the only option it would be best to do it all. Rountree: Any other questions? Hepper: Yes, I wanted to know more about the landscaping along Ten Mile and Ustick. Merkle: I believe the applicant is proposing to do a berm and a fence as is typical further down Ten Mile like Parkwood Meadows and possibly what is down Ustick at Fieldstone Meadows which is a berm and a fence at the back of the berm to be continuous down the street so we don't have a hodge podge of different ideas. Hepper: Okay, and that would be on both streets, Ustick and Ten Mile? Merkle: Yes, sir, except for where the access from that existing house would remain to Ten Mile Road. The berm would be down to level for that particular lot. One good point that staff brought up was including that piece into the preliminary plat let's us provide city water and sewer to it which we were not planning on before but that is one benefit of doing that. We will comply with that. Rountree: Thank You, anyone else wish to testify on this proposal? John Schaffer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schaffer: The property owner to the east of this proposed subdivision, I do not at this time propose to develop the property. I guess the question, understanding Jim, didn't you say there was going to be an access to Ten Mile Road. Rountree: If you direct the questions to us please. Schaffer: There was a statement made, I didn't catch it whether there is going to be an access road to Ten Mile. Something about a piece of property that held out. ! 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 34 Rountree: The existing home that is on Ten Mile will access Ten Mile but there will not be an access on Ten Mile. Schaffer: I would request that maybe looking into an access on Ten Mile Road since this subdivision would only have one access to Ustick for an exit. Again I would request that a barrier be provided to prevent foot traffic from the subdivision to the east from the access road for future development. And the irrigation system, there was a comment made about irrigation and I apologize I didn't pick that up. Is the existing irrigation water going to be used for irrigation by pressurized system and how is this proposed to be implemented with water usage and rights. And one other question, the sewage pump system will there be some type of retaining barrier or something of that nature in case of failure of this pump and who will maintain this pump after it is taken over, the city requirement or who is responsible for this. Those are all the questions I have. Rountree: Anyone else wishing to testify? Ray Wilder, 3340 North Ten Mile Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wilder: This stub street that he was talking about at the end of this field right here that field, by the time they take the right of way for the drain ditch off of there that field only amounts to about an acre and a half is all there is too in that field. It is just a little pie shaped field there. I can't see where a stub street would go to, just right into the drain ditch, there is no place for it to go. And I have lived out there on that comer for 37 years and I have, when they first built the sewer plant I was against the sewer plant when they built it. They tried to buy our place to put the sewer plant on, I was against it then, but it is not bad, I don't smell it. Then a couple of years ago when Candlelight went I came up here and they told me how beautiful it was going to be and I told them I was going to make my own berm on my own side of the road which i did one winter. I dumped manure over the fence and made a nice looking berm. And it smelled worse than the sewer plant. Last year we had over 1100 head on this place and I didn't want to live near that. But you can't live on the corner of Ustick and Ten Mile with 1100 head of cattle I will grant you that. Every night you go to bed you worry about many you are going to have lost before morning comes. And this water system now when it is all done I don't know who is going to use the water, we haven't used the water for 30 days, (inaudible) and this is the first time in our life we have had water. the Cairns place and Fieldstone that all has no water to it, I think we should have a new schedule made out. These people that have the 5 acre tracts should take it one or two days a week and run it across their place so they will get their use out of it. We are having trouble getting rid of the water right now, because Larry ended up with the drain ditch on his place and this water is not being used. This stub street that goes into that little place, if you went out and looked it is only, there isn't anything there. I mean it would just run right smack into a drain ditch bank is where it 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 35 would go. But as far as the sewer, the only time the sewer smells I think is when the sewer plant has a little accident and they have had one or 2 over the years. That is all I needed to say. Rountree: Thank you, anyone else wishing to testify? Tammy Schaffer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schaffer: I just have a small comment to make, we were here a couple of years ago when Fieldstone and Candlelight were getting started and I don't recall the developers addressing the schools, and 1 didn't hear any of that tonight. I am just concerned that Linder Elementary is going to be mighty crowded with all the development going on. I just wanted to enter one little comment, some little old lady being concerned about the schools being over run with new students. These type of houses are perfect for the young families to move into. I suspect there will be lots of young people there. That is it, thank you. Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify, Mr. Merkle will you address some of the questions? Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I would like to address a few of these items I jotted down. We are proposing to provide pressurized irrigation utilizing existing water that crosses the property. 1 think that is in the best interest of the City and I think we have come to agreement on that. The sewer lift station, Mr. Schaffer had a comment about how the sewage would be stored if the pump went down or whatever. If this lift station is the solution that the City and the applicant can come to the meeting of minds on, typically they do provide an underground wet well for storage and there is a duel pump system one kicks on and one kicks off. There probably is an occasion when they will both be down but the sewer system is maintained by the City of Meridian, if we come to agreement with Mr. Smith. Regarding the issues on the schools, every application comes through and we get this typical letter from the Meridian School District and it is true schools are over crowded I don't know if I have the answer or if my applicant have the answer. However, I do know there is talk of a bond issue voting on around a year from now possibly, I'm not sure. Talk about transfer tax or impact fees, the applicant would be in support of those issues. We are not proposing a school site for this site, but there are other ways to mitigate the impacts. I am not sure if we will find the solution here tonight. That is all I have for those issues. Rountree: How about fencing the stub street to the east? Merkle: 1 think that is acceptable, it is reasonable he doesn't want any foot traffic across there, it is reasonable. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 36 Rountree: Any other questions? Thanks Jim, anyone else wish to testify? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Discussion, comments, recommendations. Nobody wants to make a motion. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Hepper: Second Rountree: It has been moved and seconded that we have findings of facts and conclusions prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2, 28 LOTS BY HOWELL CONSTRUCTION AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: Rountree: I will now open the public hearing, someone from the applicant. (End of Tape) Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: I am here this evening on behalf of Kevin Howell the applicant. Again I have the Highway Districts comments for your packet which shows a little map on it for the vicinity of the project. The second or third to last page kind of shows a vicinity map for you to look at. This application is located about a 1000 feet south of Ustick Road on the east side of Locust Grove. This is just directly north of the Chamberlain Estates subdivision which is an approved subdivision just beginning construction. This application is for annexation R- 8 zoning on 9.7 acres with 28 lot preliminary plat, this provides a density of 2.9 lots per acre. Which is well under the R-8 zoning, the reason for the R-8 request is the lot width requirement, your R-4 zoning requires 80 and we have some deep lots here and we want to keep the widths down to 70 or below and still have the lot square footage of an R-4 and the density of an R-4 but have an R-8 zoning to provide us with some relief on the width of the lots. The applicant is proposing home sizes with a minimum of 1300 square feet which is similar to what was approved on Chamberlain Estates. Access to the subdivision will be from a future street, which is not constructed yet in Chamberlain Estates at the southeast corner. Also, 2 stub streets are proposed, one to the north, one to the east. Also the culdesac at the west end will have right of way that touches the adjacent right of way so that in the event that the property to the north develops they can take that road up 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 37 and out wherever they see fit. I would like to point out the entrance to Pheasant Pointe or Howell Tract is right here. In talking to the Highway District they did not want a direct connection like this to provide basically a residential street to act as a collector in the long run. We have the situation where we have a (inaudible) by a 1/4 mile and he thought that this piece could just loop back up and around and access out onto Ustick Road. So there will be a piece of right of way touching there so they can take this road off whichever direction they want to into that particular street right there. Again we met with the Highway district at the technical review on May 20th and they recommended approval as proposed. The streets within this subdivision will be built to the Highway Districts standards, 50 foot of right of way, 36 foot streets and 5 foot sidewalks as required by Meridian. Sewer for the project will be provided by the extension of the 18 inch south slough trunk which is now located at the street entrance on Locust Grove to Pheasant Pointe. That will be run through a sewer access common lot which is in Green and right onto the east. This trunk sewer will eventually serve the City's impact area all the way to a 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale road. Water for the subdivision will be extended from the lines Chamberlain Estates 1 once those are installed. The applicant doesn't anticipate developing this particular piece until after Chamberlain which is to the south of him is completely developed, that would be one to 2 years. So this is something that is down the road. The existing south slough or Finch Lateral whichever you want to call it traverses this property in the vicinity of the dashed line. It comes into the property at the north and kind of traverses through and back up onto the culvert of Locust Grove. We are proposing the realign this ditch as was done between Howell Tract and Cougar Creek and that is represented by the solid line. The realignment will provide obviously room for the water to traverse but also for Nampa Meridian's access road on the north side, they do not have any access road right there now. They just drive through the pasture to get to it. There will be an access road on the north side and then room for the future city pathway on the south. As I said the new alignment which is not too much different as it is shown in the solid. Pressurized irrigation for the subdivision will be provided to these lots and tied into the system that will be provided in Chamberlain Estates. This is the same developer that did Chamberlain and he kind of went back and rethought his conclusion on pressurized irrigation and is going to provide for Chamberlain as well as Chamberlain 2, this proposal. 1 would like to address the City Engineer's comments on this proposal. Again I would like to state for both Gary and Shari's benefit that I will be providing a written list of responses to each of these items to their satisfaction before we go to Council. I think it is a good idea to eliminate some miscommunication. Particularly 1 would like to talk about his comments about Lot 4 - Block 1, that was item 11, what happens the mature trees on Lot 4 - Block 1, can they be saved as existing residents on this lot to be removed. Again we have a situation where there is an existing residence south and west of the existing ditch of the proposed ditch and isolated from the rest of the subdivision. The applicant is proposing the demolish, remove the house, save as many trees as he can but still allow this lot to have access to Locust Grove. The remainder of the subdivision will have interior 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 38 circulation. Because of the alignment of the ditch, slough it is not practical for his to put a driveway across (inaudible). We have discussed this situation with the Highway District and since there is an existing residence there even though t is going to be removed they will still (inaudible) and allow this to have access to Locust Grove. His comment #12, regarding status of the culvert under Locust Grove, there are no requirements to provide good or bad there are no requirements at this time by the Highway District to provide widening for Locust Grove, it is on their 5 year plan for improvements. Which I think it was spoken about earlier possibly 1996 or 1997 1 don't know when they are going to improve it. But the requirements up and down Locust Grove right now are just to deed the right of way 45 foot, trust fund for the sidewalks but not to improve or widen curb, gutter, sidewalk or streets. So, in my opinion that culvert will stay as it is until the Highway District comes through and does the project probably from Fairview all the way up to north of Ustick. Regarding Shari Stiles comments, again we will provide her with a list addressing each of these items particularly though items 1 and 2 we can comply with. Again we have this 1000 foot long issue that is in your ordinance for Block length. The block length on the south, the proposal to the south of us between our proposal and it, we are in excess of 1000 foot she is right. But there is no stub street provided for down here and by your definition of a block length we are going to have a longer than a (inaudible). So we will be requesting a variance for that issue. Item 3 talks about Lot 4 - Block 1, which is that little lot at the southwest corner. We are proposing to access Locust Grove with that lot, again due to its proximity with the south slough and the driveway over the 5 foot culvert for a driveway and the Highway District does not have a problem with us just accessing Locust Grove. Item 4 she talks about a separate lot for the City's pathway plan. It is not shown that way, we have shown this exactly like we showed Cougar Creek and Howell Tract but that is probably better idea of what she has come up with to provide a separate lots for homeowners to maintain. And the applicant is willing to modify that and include that in one common lot from here up to there for maintenance responsibilities. Again, 1 think it was spoken earlier in the Bedford Place application about the City and Nampa Meridian coming to a meeting of the minds on what is going to be required on these pathway plans. I am not going to say tonight what will be done and what won't be done other than we will work with Shari and Nampa Meridian District to come up with a solution. But that will be in a common lot as she has requested. Also on Locust Grove there will be a 20 foot landscape berm and fence to go along with what is proposed for Chamberlain and what is going across the street in Howell Tract. They have already built their berm and this will be comparable to that, except for where that driveway access is out to Locust Grove. I believe that addresses their comments, at this time, and I would like to answer any questions if I could. Hepper: I have a question, you originally stated that the lot size and the building size would be the same as an R-4, you mentioned you wanted the building size to be 1300 square feet. 0 0 0 0 171 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 39 Merkle: No, if I said that I mispoke, what I meant Commissioner Hepper is the density and square footage of the lots would probably meet the R4, we are asking for R-8 because of lot width. The house size will be requested to be the same as what Chamberlain was approved at which was 1300 square foot minimum. We are not proposing to meet all the R-4 requirements, I was just stating for informational purposes that we are meeting density and lot square footage of R-4 but we are asking for R-8 zoning. Hepper: Are you sure Chamberlain was approved at 1300? Merkle: Yes I am, in fact if staff could look it up in the minutes and see what is says, I think it says 1300 if it says 1350 that is what we will go with. Hepper: If it said 1300 it is one that slipped by us. I know that has been out intention to keep everything at 1350 out there. Merkle: If the City wants to go 1350 here I don't think the applicant will have a problem with that. Hepper: I think those are our intentions, at least my intentions. Alidjani: Wayne is is possible to look that up? Crookston: Tonight? Alidjani: Is it possible to look that up 1300 or 1350? Crookston: Yes, tonight? Alidjani: No Merkle: I would propose that whatever is there we would request here. Rountree: Any other questions? Thanks Jim, anybody wish to testify on this issue? Vern Almond, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney. Almond: I guess I have some questions, I adjoin this property to the east and the question that I might have is there a possibility down the road I have looked over the proposal for the location of the sewer with the road access going to the east out of that subdivision. Is there a possibility down the road that this might change, this location and this road. I think they have done some of this in the past to some property adjoining me and I am just 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 40 wondering if that is possible for something like that to happen. Shearer: You mean to not put that stub street in? Almond: Well, to change the location or change the location of the sewer or whatever. Because I think before they had some streets that they changed coming into my property that they did change and I never knew anything about it. And it does affect. Shearer: You are to the east and not to the north of this. Are you to the north too? Almond: I am north of the other previous Chamberlain. I am east of east of Chamberlain No. 2. There were some changes on the roadways in Chamberlain 1 which I knew nothing about until is was all over with. Fortunate to me I think they are all right, but I wonder if that can happen again. Shearer: It is not too likely looking at this piece of property. Rountree: At this point we receive the comments from Ada County Highway District so I think it is unlikely but it would be something you would want to look at at the City Council stage when they look at the preliminary plat as well to make sure there hasn't been a change. You should be noticed when that happens. Almond: Okay, I don't know and I guess I should have known, presently my irrigation water and if I understood it correctly at that time, my irrigation water if it drains, I am talking about not being used and it has to go somewhere. Presently it goes over to Chamberlain No. 1 and is there until it gets down to Finch Lateral, And I was under the impression that was the same way it would be, if I am, I would like to know if I am wrong on that. Also that same irrigation also comes from additional property to my east and south. Okay another thing I am wondering about is whether there is a proposal for fencing. I am back on this fencing deal because being a farmer I have a problem. I don't know whether there is any provision. But anyway presently next to this property right now, north of this property there is a bull out in that pasture and I don't think anybody in the subdivision would want their children getting out with the bull in the pasture. I think there needs to be some fences also, for the the (inaudible) he has some cows and I have some cows and presently the children are over there and the mother cows are going to protect the calves and I don't think these subdivision people understand the danger that can develop from not having fences to keep their children away from those. A day or so ago I was up along the canal which feeds my irrigation ditch and here are 2 little kids up there and they found some ducks in that canal. And they were in there trying to rescue them, they weren't in the canal, but they were there along that canal to rescue those little ducks. You know that is dangerous and they were way away from where there were any people that knew about 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 41 them. They came from the subdivision to the west quite a distance. I would like also, that Finch Lateral whenever there is a rain storm, it flows real heavily. and I am concerned that if there isn't some fencing done along there, there are going to be some kids and what not in danger. I would like to see, I farm other places along subdivisions and I have found when there were put in faces I get along pretty well, but without them I have a lot of problems. Thank you if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. Rountree: Any questions for Mr. Almond? Thank you, anyone else wish to testify? Mr. Merkle if you would address some of the questions. Merkle: to my knowledge the streets and sewer alignment are not going to change from the proposal at the east end of the subdivision. I met with Mr. Almond a week or 2 ago and shared some information about the trunk line and approximately about where it might be going through his property. The irrigation water that he was speaking of is this field right here that he owns. Here is Chamberlain 2 here is Chamberlain 1 the water comes down here and corrugates to the north. When he doesn't use it, it runs along here and gets (inaudible). That will accommodated for in Chamberlain 1 and (inaudible). I believe the applicant proposes to fence the back of the lots adjacent to the drain, that is what he has done in Howell Tract. There is a fence on the north side of the access road at the back of the lots. And since he owns the lots on both sides I wouldn't propose that he would probably be fencing the back of the lots on both sides of the drain. Regarding his comments about safety near the drain, that is something the City is going to have to grapple with as far as safety and liability issues if they propose greenbelts along irrigation laterals. And that would be all unless you have other questions. Rountree: Anyone? Hepper: Did you mentioned fencing along the property to the north? Merkle: No, I did not. Hepper: Would that be possible to put in the restrictive covenants? Merkle: That each lot owner will be required, I think that is something we could work with. Hepper: Within a certain time frame, like their landscaping time frame within 30, 60, 90 days that they be required to put in a 6 foot cedar fence or something like that. Merkle: Okay, I think that would be acceptable to Kevin. Hepper: I think most of the property owners would be doing that anyways. But if you made 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 42 it a restrictive covenant then you wouldn't have one or 2 that tried not to, Merkle: And then possibly we could have them all pretty close to the same type. I know in the subdivision south of Chamberlain there are many different types of fences as there are houses. Hepper: I don't think Mr. Almond is concerned about the type as he is about the fence. Rountree: Any other questions? Hepper: How about putting a fence on the street stub to the north there, that would be the developers responsibility. Merkle: Yes, and as I stated earlier with the approval of the Highway District it will be their right of way to the property line, as long as they can. 1 know they put barricades but they don't put fences up. Hepper: I think otherwise you are going to have kids walking right up the fence there. Merkle: And that is a typical issue with subdivision that are platted adjacent to existing agricultural. Hepper: I think that would be the developers responsibility on that and to the east that could be a temporary type fence, something that could be taken down quite easily later on. But something to keep the kids out of there. Merkle: Again, in conclusion I would like to state that the key issues are providing the common lot for the ditch and the 20 foot landscape on the frontage. I will modify that and give it to Shari and let the process continue. Thank you. Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify? Don Brian, Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: (Inaudible) we need to check our Comprehensive Plan because 1 think it specifically states that new developments where it joins agricultural land is required to be fenced. It either has to be landscaped berm or fenced in some substantial blocking. I think it is all cut and dry in the new comp plan. That is all I have to say. Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. For the record we did find the findings of fact on the Chamberlain 1 it did specifically say house 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 43 size shall not be less than 1301 square feet. Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of facts and conclusions of law on this project. Alidjani: Second Rountree: Its been moved and seconded that we have findings of fact prepared for this proposal, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Any other comments, discussion from anyone? I have one thing that I would like to direct to Gary, with respect to your comment about what City Council said about having all the "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed for subdivision plats, when these things come back to us in the form of findings of fact that is usually the point that we act on the preliminary plats. Is there some vehicle you can let us know that all the concerns have been taken care of, or have not been taken care of and what the specifics are so we can act on those as well? Smith: Yea I can. Alidjani: Maybe we can table it. Rountree: Yes, we can table it or deny it or whatever. Smith: I think what Mr. Merkle is proposing tonight and some others have done in the past is if they physically address our comments, Shari's and my comments and anyone else that makes comment or questions or whatever they might be that they address that in a written format and then it is of record. So, everyone knows where each one of us stands on these items. And when we review the findings and there are still unanswered things then they can be brought up at that time. I think the (inaudible) for the engineers, developers and surveyors to get back to Shari and I and get these things answered right away. And that way when you ask me a question or Wayne Crookston asks me a question or the City Council asks a question we have an answer for them. Hepper: I have a question Gary, what do we have for means of enforcement when the developers say they will do something and they get your approval and go out and don't do it? Smith: I think that the developers agreement is being developed right now and if these Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 44 agreements are going to be commonplace for all developments then there is a specific form of agreement. If the condition, Wayne and I met today and we were talking about these agreements and I think that it would be appropriate for the building department, namely I am trying to get another person on board over there to help on the work load. But that person, one of their responsibilities would be to make sure that these improvements that are required are completed and that they are completed at the very least time wise before any water meters or occupancy permits are issued to a building. And hopefully much sooner than that. At the time we do our final inspection for sewer and water facilities, a final inspection would be done for all those improvements, such as fences, berms, streets lights, street signs, irrigation piping whatever it might be outside of standard sewer and water and standard street construction. All of those items that will be named in the developers agreement as conditions of approval will have to be done. And if they are not done then the developer will be put on notice and I don't remember the exact language that we had in that rough draft Wayne. They were that the developer was to be notified that they were not completed and that he had a certain length of time to complete or that a notification of water meter or occupancy permits weren't going to be issued until such time that they were. Or the developer has the opportunity to come before the City Council and voice his concerns about the development. But anyway we will be looking at that because right now the only time we don't know, the only time we know something hasn't been done is when a resident of the subdivision calls in or an adjacent property owner if it is an irrigation piping or whatever. We get notified outside of anyone here at City Hall and that is not the way it should be done. I think this person I am trying to get on board will be put to good use, kind of policing that part of it. Rountree: Thanks Gary, well I need one more motion before I can resign my Chairmanship. Shearer: I move we adjourn. Alidjani: Second Rountree: Moved and seconded that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian Planning & Zoning May 31, 1994 Page 45 ATTEST: L WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY LE K 0 JIM,JOHNSW CHAIRMAN NAME: h J PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET PHONE NUMBER: ------------------------- - ----------=-ro--1---------------- - x + 88-7v GLENN J. RHODES, Prescent SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President JAMES E. BRUCE, Secrerary TO: 0m MAY 3 11994 Vijya Laxmi Development, Inc. 2526 Airport Way Boise ID 83705 FROM: Larry Sale, S p vi Developm� SUBJECT: HARTFORD SUBDIVI IO - PRELIMINARY PLAT May 25, 1994 On May 25, 1994, the Commissioners of the Ada County Highway District (hereafter called "District") took action on the Preliminary Plat as stated on the attached staff report. In order that the Final Plat may be considered by the District for acceptance, the Developer shall cause the following applicable standard conditions to be satisfied prior to District certification and endorsement: 1. Drainage plans shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District. 2. If Public street improvements are required: Prior to any construction within the existing or proposed public right-of- way, the following shall be submitted and subject to review and approval by the District: a. Three complete sets of detailed street construction drawings prepared by an Idaho Registered Professional Engineer, together with payment of plan review fee. b. Execute an Inspection Agreement between the Developer and the District together with initial payment deposit for inspection and/or testing services. C. Complete all street improvements to the satisfaction of the District, or execute Surety Agreement between the Developer and the District to guarantee the completion of construction of all street improvements. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 0 May 25, 1994 Page 2 E 3. Furnish copy of Final Plat showing street names as approved by the Local Government Agency having such authority together with payment of fee charged for the manufacturing and installation of all street signs, as required. 4. If Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund deposit is required, make deposit to the District in the form of cash or cashier's check for the amount specified by the District. 5. Furnish easements, agreements, and all other datum or documents as required by the District. 6. Furnish Final Plat drawings for District acceptance, certifications, and endorsement. The final plat must contain the signed endorsement of the Owner's and Land Surveyor's certification. 7. Approval of the plat is valid for one year. An extension of one year will be considered by the Commission if requested wit4in 15 -days prior to the expiration date. Please contact me at 345-7680, should you have any questions. LS cc: Development Services Chron lUiLbblaaEnginddij1ho Meridian City Hall 11 0 29 GLENN J. RHODES, President SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President JAMES E. BRUCE, Secretary TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ACHD Commission Development Services PRELIMINARY PLAT - HARTFORD SUBDIVISION INTER -DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE HARTFORD/DSTECH 5-25-94 DATE: May 23, 1994 (Developer - Vijya Laxmi Development, Inc., 2526 Airport Way, Boise, ID 83705) (Engineer/Surveyor - Hubble Engineering, Inc., James Merkle 9550 W. Bethel Court, Boise, ID 83709) FACTS & FINDINGS: 1. Hartford is a 19.6 -acre, 57 -lot, single family residential subdivision located on the northeast corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. There are 2880 -feet of new public streets planned. This application includes an annexation to Meridian and a zone change from R -T to R-4. 2. GENERAL INFORMATION: LEAD AGENCY - Meridian ACRES - 19.6 FEET OF NEW PUBLIC STREETS - 2880 LOTS - 57 EXISTING ZONING - RT (R-4 requested) ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - 570 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE - 256 L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Ustick - 1322 -feet MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - Date 10/8/92 Volume 664 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Minor Arterial ADA COUNTY RIDGE -TO -RIVERS PATHWAY FLAN - Lane EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50 -feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90 -feet (45 -feet from centerline) Ustick Road is improved with 25 -feet of paving. L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Ten Mile - 566 -feet MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - N/A FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Local ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 PRELIMINARY PLATO HARTFORD SUBDIVISION • May 23, 1994 Page 2 ADA COUNTY RIDGE -TO -RIVERS PATHWAY PLAN - Route EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY - 50 -feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90' -feet (4:5 -feet from centerline) Ten Mile is improved with 24 -feet of paving. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT ZONE - West Ada IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - Near Rural 3. Ustick Road is a section line road classified as a minor arte- rial with bike lane designation from the Ridge to Rivers Path- way Plan; therefore 90 -feet of right-of-way is required. 4. The ACHD Capital Improvement Plan currently indicates that Ustick Road is not approved for use of Road Impact Fee funds to increase its capacity; however this designation may change when a CIP update (currently underway) is complete and takes Meridian's newly adapted Comprehensive Plan and rate of growth into account. If the developer wishes to be paid for the additional right-of-way, he/she must submit an application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 5. Ten Mile Road is a section line road in an impact area, there- fore the District requires 90 -feet of right-of-way. 6. The ACHD Capital Improvement Plan currently indicates that Ten Mile is not approved for use of Road Impact gee funds to in- crease its capacity; however this designation may change when a CIP update (currently underway) is complete and takes into account Meridian's newly adapted Comprehensive Plan and rate of growth into account. If the developer wishes to be paid for the additional right-of-way, he/she must submit an applica- tion to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance 4188. 7. The existing dwelling on Ten Mile is considered by staff to be an outparcel, therefore improvements and right -o£ -way will be required to extend along this parcel abutting Ten Mile. 8. Staff recommends a stub street to the west on Wilder Drive as shown in the site plan. This will accommodate the planned sewer route. 9. This application is scheduled for public hearing by the Meridi- an Planning & Zoning Commission on May 31, 1994. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 1. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be PRELIMINARY PLATO HARTFORD SUBDIVISION • May 23, 1994 Page 3 compensated for this additional r;ght-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 2. Provide pavement widening on Ustick Road for three 12 -foot traffic lanes with a 5 -foot paved shoulder. Coordinate with District Traffic Services staff. 3. Construct 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ustick Road abutting parcel adjacent to the new right-of-way 'line. 4. Direct lot or parcel access to Ustick Road is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 5. Dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ten Mile Road abutting parcel and outparcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 6. Provide pavement widening on Ten Mile for three 12 -foot traffic lanes with 5 -foot paved shoulders. Coordinate with District Traffic Services staff. 7. Construct 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road (including outparcel) abutting parcel adjacent to the new right-of-way line. 8. Direct lot or parcel access to Ten Miie Road is prohibited, in compliance with District policy. Lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat. 9. Align the proposed entrance to the subdivision on Ustick Road (Hartford Avenue) with the entrance to the proposed Candle- light Subdivision to the south. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. Street and drainage improvements required in the public right- of-way shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and policies. 2. Dedicated streets and drainage systems shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District stand --.--ds and poli- cies. 3. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and calculations presented to ACRD shall be sealed, signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance wizn Idaho Code, Section 54-1215. PF 7T IMINARY PLAT• HARTFORD SUBDIVISIJN • May 23, 1994 Page 4 4. Provide written approval from the appropriate irriga- tion/drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their system. 5. Locate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigaticn and drain- age appurtenances, atc.) outside of the proposed street im- provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 6. Continue existing irrigation and drainage syste.s across par- cel. 7. Submit three sets of street construction plans to the District for review and appropriate action, B. Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and appropriate action by ACHD. The proposea arainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of-way or in a drainage easement set aside specif- ically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed said easement. Drainage easements and their use restrictions _hall be noted on the plat. 9. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACHD. 10. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of 5 -feet from the side lot property lines when the driveways are not being snared with the adjacent property. 11. Developer shall provide the District ,,ith a copy cf the record- ed plat prior to the installation of street nate signs. Street signs will not be ordered until all fee= have been paid and a copy of the recorded plat has been provided to ACHD staff. The copy of the recorded plat shall show the recording information as inscribed by the Deputy County Recorder. 12. Install a stop sign on every uasignalized approacn of a project street to an intersection involvin; a collector or arterial as the cross -street. The stop sign shall be in- stalled when the project street is first accessibie r_o the motoring public. 13. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from ACHD for all street and utility construction within the public right-of- way. Contact Construction Services a,: 345-'1662 (with zoning file number) for details. PRELIMINARY May 23, 1994 Page 5 PLAT • HARTFORD SUBDIVISION • 14. A request for modification, variance or haiver of any require- ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a zequirement would result in substantial hardship or inequity. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. STAFF SUBMITTING: DATE OF COMMIS:=ON "PPROVA.: Larry Sale MAY 2 5 1994 LLJ 0 4 0 ZnZ 9 Fm2 zia i - v laza sUU 'oF8 J W 7 Z O _ Q > J ;oa I�r In< o? c� O La W cc Qa x 2 M 2� 4 z 9 9 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RONALD L. HENRY ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE N.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 E., R.1 W., B.M. MERIDIAN MEADOWS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing 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 May 31, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 1 0 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 4.7 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R -T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-4 and stated that the use proposed would be for proper residential as dictated by the zone and submitted a proposed preliminary plat. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that some of the property to the north is platted for residential and some property to the north is unplatted and vacant ground; that there is R-4 residential property to the west across the Meridian/Kuna Highway; the property to the south is platted in larger acreage parcels; the property to the east is vacant ground and farther to the east is R-4 residential ground but is developed at about R-3 but developed platted. 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, Harlow R. Minegar, Leonard D. Reed and Sherri L. Norman, have requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 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 requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 2 0 0 (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the property is included within an area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Single Family Residential area. 9. There were no property owners, or anyone else, appearing at the hearing to object to the application. 10. That the Applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is, as stated above, for single family dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that the lots zoned R-4 would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per and that the houses would have a minimum square footage of 1,600 square feet. 11. The Applicant stated at the hearings that there would be 10 lots for single family dwellings, the subdivision application states there would be density of 2.13 lots per acre; he also stated that he needs a variance on set backs for lots 9 and 10, Block 4 that lot 8 Block 1, and that he would install a pressurized irrigation system and that all ditches would be discontinued in use and that he would do covenants and restriction. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 3 lots. 9 0 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian School District, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that the annexation description needs to be prepared from the warranty deed description so that the adjacent State Highway 69 right of way is not excluded, that covenants need to be submitted, that the highest seasonal groundwater level needs to be established, that the sewer service for Lot 10 may need to cross Lot 9, and that access for lots 9 and 10, Block 4 needs to be taken care of. 17. The Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented, among other comments, that restrictive covenants need to be submitted; that license agreements with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District need to be submitted, and that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 18. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 4 C� 11 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."; 19. 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." 20. 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 . 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses, 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." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 5 • 0 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 6 C� E 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. 26. 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) wide." 27. 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." 28. 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;" 29. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 7 0 0 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." 30. 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. 31. That the Applicant submitted an application for preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and zoning which application included a preliminary plat. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 8 0 9 pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application under Idaho Code, Section 50- 222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, with the consent of the owners of the property, and 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. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 9 0 • requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set - asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; 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. 10. 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. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 10 9 0 including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Bureau of Reclamation, and the comments Meridian Planning Director shall be met and shall be addressed in a development Agreement. 12. 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. 13. 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. 15. That the house size representation of 1,600 square feet must be met and those representations of the Applicant made at the public hearing. 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 and its 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 met the not property shall be subject to de -annexation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 11 ! 0 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED U-4 K COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECONNENDATION 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 these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MOTION: /���i APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 12 C, • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DAN HARDEE ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 SW 1/4, SECTION 35, T.4 N., R.1 W., B.M. NORTH OF USTICR ON USTICR ROAD RAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through its engineer, Ted Hutchinson, 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 May 31, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 1 0 0 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 4.38 acres in size; it is approximately 1,600 east of the intersection of Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road; the development would include 13 lots. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the County R1 (Estate Residential); that the Applicant has requested that the property be zoned R-4 Residential and stated that the use proposed would be for R-4 Residential development. 4. The present land use has one single family residential home and three accessory detached buildings with the remainder of the property being used for pasture; that the Applicant's application for subdivision approval, submitted with the application for annexation and zoning stated that they have approximately 3.10 dwelling units per acre, that the houses would meet the ordinance requirement which is 1,400 square foot homes; that the Applicant's representative testified that there would be improvement placed along Ustick Road and that the property owners would maintain them and that there would be landscaping of lawn, trees, and shrubs, that the irrigation ditches would be tiled, and that they will fence the road stubbed into John Shaffer's property. 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, are Willis R. Nelson and Elaine E. Nelson, have requested the annexation and consented to the Application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 2 0 0 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That there was one person testifying at the hearing; that John Shaffer, the owner of the property to the west, testified that he was not against the development but he questioned what would prevent foot traffic from coming onto his property; that if there was a pathway along five Mile Creek he wants access to the pathway. 10. The Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, City Police Department, Idaho Power, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee and City Fire Department did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and he stated that restrictive covenants need to be submitted, that the highest seasonal groundwater elevations need to be determined, that a portion of the property was in a flood hazard area and he questioned whether the should be a berm/landscaped lot along lots 1 and 13 to provide privacy and sound protection for those lot owners. 12. That the Planning director submitted comments, some of which were similar to those of the City Engineer, but also that a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 3 development agreement was required as a condition of annexation and that a link to the proposed bike path on Five Mile Creek was needed. She also commented that the sewer plant is to the northwest of this site and the prevailing winds carry odors on occasion to this property, that all adjacent agricultural uses must be protected, that a 20 foot landscaped lots maintained by a homeowners association should be provided along Ustick Road, and that a development agreement was required as condition of annexation. 13. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation request was that the subdivision proposed for the land would mean 20 elementary aged children, 17 middle school aged children and 20 senior high aged students; that Linder Elementary School is at 1378 of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 1298 of capacity and the Meridian High School at 1168 of capacity; the District went on to state as follows: "There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land dedicated to the district or at least made available at a minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would need water and sewer service available. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of schools." 14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 4 0 16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 17. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer may be a problem because a lift station may be required and it is the policy of the City to avoid lift stations if at all possible; another means of sewer service may have to be investigated. 18. 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. 19. 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." 20. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 5 • 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 . 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses arrangements), . . ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." 111.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 23. 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. 24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 6 the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 7 0 0 in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. 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;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi - improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 8 9 0 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That 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 by the provisions contained in Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 9 0 0 Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 10 property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de -annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. The development agreement shall also address the landscaping along Ustick Road, and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall require the mandatory homeowners association as a condition of annexation. 10. 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. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer and of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director and City Engineer and these Findings and Conclusion shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 11 12. 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; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. 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. 14. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. 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. 17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de -annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED. COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 12 COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMONDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City J 6emmi�sian of the City of Meridian Cali .t C- that they approve the annex ion 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 if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MOTION: / APPROVED DISAPPROVED:_ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/RAMBLE WOOD Page 13 E 0 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KEVIN HOWELL ANNEXATION AND ZONING NE 1/4, Section 5, T. 3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES #2 SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through his engineer, Jim Merkle, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 31, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -1 0 0 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately nine and 8/10 acres in size; the property is south of Ustick Road and West of Locust Grove Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his subdivision application that the subdivision lot size would be a minimum or 6,500 square feet, that the preliminary plat submitted for approval also show that most of the lots are substantially greater than 6,500 square feet; that there would be 28 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be per the Ordinance, that there would be 2.88 lots per acre. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-8, Residential fashion, but only with single family dwellings; that most subdivisions in the area, except for Chamberlain Estates No 1, were annexed with the condition that the minimum house size be 1,350 square feet. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property and has submitted the request for this Application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -2 0 0 application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. B. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture and a house; that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 2.88 dwelling units per acre. 10. The Applicant's representative stated that they would install pressurized irrigation both in this subdivision and in Chamberlain Estates No 1; that they would re -align the South Slough; that the house would be removed but that they would try to save as many trees as possible; that there would be a common lot along the South Slough for maintenance; that there would be a 20 foot landscaped berm and fence; that a fence would be placed along the South Slough along the back of the lots; that there would be fencing along lots on the north; and that there would be fencing along stub streets to the north and east subdivisions access will be from Finch Creek to the east. 11. That the subdivisions to the west have not been fencing the South Slough but have been landscaping the Slough. 12. That comments were received from the Meridian City Engineer, City Planning Director, Fire Department, Police Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -3 Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power Company, and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 13. The Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith commented, among other things, that the annexation legal description needs to be amended to include the adjacent one half of Locust Grove Road, that restrictive covenants need to be submitted, and that the highest seasonal groundwater level needs to be established to aid builders in setting the bottom of their house footings a minimum of one foot above that elevation; and the Planning Director, Shari Stiles commented that a license agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District needs to be executed for the relocation of the South Slough; that the area for a proposed bike path must be provided separately from lots; that covenants need to be submitted; that a 20 foot landscaped easement along lgr maintained by a homeowners association needs to be provided; that an elementary school site still needs to be provided in this area; that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 14. The Meridian School District's comment in another annexation request where the students would be in the Chief Joseph attendance zone was that the subdivision proposed for the land would mean 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged children and 29 senior high aged students; that Chief Joseph Elementary School is at 117% of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 130% of capacity and the Meridian High School at 117% of capacity; the District went on to state as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -4 9 0 "Considering these facts, Meridian School District can not recommend approval of this subdivision at this time. If and when you do, it will be a certainty that students from this subdivision will be transferred outside of Chief Joseph Elementary attendance zone. The school district will have to be allowed time to review an alternative solution to the attendance problem."; the Meridian School District did submit a comment for this Application and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools; that before they could support this subdivision, land needs to be dedicated to the district or at least made available for a school site in this area; that the site would need water and sewer service available." 15. That two people testified on this Application; Vern Allmen stated that he wants there to be fencing along the South Slough, that he had concerns over irrigation, that he wanted fencing of the perimeter of the subdivision to prevent trash from dispersing, and that he wondered about in the road layout; Don Bryan testified that there should be fences constructed to separate subdivisions and agricultural land. 16 That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 17. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 18. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -5 0 agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 20. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for would comply with the neighborhood. 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -6 0 0 23. 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." 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: 111.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 25. 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. 26. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -7 0 0 site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. 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. 29. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -8 0 0 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. 30. 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) wide." 31. 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." 32. 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;" 33. 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; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -9 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." 34. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission 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. 35. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -10 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, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. B. 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -11 0 0 connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set - asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; 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. 10. 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. 11. 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, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -12 0 0 Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. 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; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. 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. 14. That as a condition of annexation the house size of 1,350 square feet must be met; that this is concluded as a condition of annexation because most of the other subdivisions in this area have that as a condition of annexation and it was only not required of Chamberlain Estates No. 1 due to an oversight. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -13 9 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 VOTED. COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED( COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOT CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED / DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City 14of 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 if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MOTION: APPROVED*/i DISAPPROVED:_ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -14 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VIJYA LARMI DEVELOPMENT, INC., RAY PATEL ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SECTION 35, T.4 N., R.1 W., B.M. NORTH OF USTICR ON USTICR ROAD HARTFORD SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through its engineer, Jim Merkle, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 31, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 19.57 acres in size; it is located at 3340 North Ten Mile Road on the east side and in the northeast corner of the intersection of Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road; the development would include 57 lots. 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 and stated that the use proposed would be for R-4 Residential development. 4. The present land use has one single family residential home and the remainder of the property surrounding the single family residence is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant's application for subdivision approval, submitted with the application for annexation and zoning stated that they have approximately 3.17 dwelling units per acre, that the houses would meet the ordinance requirement which is 1,400 square foot homes in the $80,000 to $125,000 range; that all streets are proposed to be built to ACHD standards with access to the project being off Ustick Road; that the Applicant's representative testified that they desire a sewer lift station, that they would install pressurized irrigation, that the house would be in the subdivision with access onto ten Mile Road, that irrigation would be piped, that a note would be placed on the plat regarding the nearness of the Meridian Sewer Plant, that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being a single family residential area, that they would berm and HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 2 0 0 fence for landscape, and that they will apply for a variance of the 1,000 foot limitation on the length of one of the blocks. 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, Ray William Wilder and Janet Wilder, 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 entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That there were two people testifying at the hearing; that John Shaffer, the owner of the property to the east, testified that he was not against the development but that he thought there should be access to Ten Mile Road and that he desired that there be a barrier for foot traffic to prevent them from going onto his property; Tami Shaffer testified about her concerns over school problems; Ray Wilder the property owner testified that the water was not being used and that if a stub street were required to access the property to the north it would no go anywhere. 10. The Ada County Highway District, Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, City Police Department, Idaho Power, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee and City HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 3 0 0 Fire Department did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and he questioned whether an above creek crossing could be made to connect sanitary sewer to the existing trunk sewer line, what would be the status of the irrigation ditch crossing this parcel, that restrictive covenants need to be submitted, that the highest seasonal groundwater elevations need to be determined, and that the sewer treatment plant is close by and that odors do escape from the plant on occasion. 12. That the Planning director submitted comments, some of which were similar to those of the City Engineer, but also that a development agreement was required as a condition of annexation and that a link to the proposed bike path on Five Mile Creek was needed. 13. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation request was that the subdivision proposed for the land would mean 20 elementary aged children, 17 middle school aged children and 20 senior high aged students; that Linder Elementary School is at 1378 of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 1298 of capacity and the Meridian High School at 1168 of capacity; the District went on to state as follows: "There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity. Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land dedicated to the district or at least made available at a minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would need water and sewer service available. In addition we would need to pass another bond issue for the construction of HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 4 E schools." 0 14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 17. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer may be a problem because a lift station may be required and it is the policy of the City to avoid lift stations if at all possible; another means of sewer service may have to be investigated. 18. 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. HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 5 0 0 19. 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." 20. 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 . 21. 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." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: 111.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, townhouses arrangements), . . ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 23. 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 6 9 0 Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 7 0 the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (101) wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. 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;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 8 0 0 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 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Desicn Manual for Ada Countv (as I by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 9 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." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle -Pedestrian Desicn Manual for Ada Countv (as I by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 9 0 0 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 by the provisions contained in Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 10 0 0 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set - asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; 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 HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 11 this paragraph are not met. The development agreement shall also address the landscaping along Ten Mile Road and Ustick Road, and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall require the mandatory homeowners association as a condition of annexation. 10. 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. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer and of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director and City Engineer and these Findings and Conclusion shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. 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; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de -annexation. 13. 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. 14. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 12 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. 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. 17. That if these conditions of approval are met the n o't 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 VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City�xg-an Eemmiss of the City of Meridian C'auncCL that they approve the annex on 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 if the conditions are not met that the property be de -annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 13 BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN STACIE YBARRA ACCESSORY USE PERMIT 0 R ! AL 1948 E. GLENLOCH MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Accessory Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 31, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant owns the property which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the surrounding properties are residential homes. 3. That the Applicant requests an accessory use permit for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1 0 0 the operation of a Family Child Care Home; that such use requires an accessory use permit in any zone where allowed. 4. That the property is contained in the CHATEAU MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. 5. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth above and the Applicant proposes to care for 5 or less children; including 2 of her own children; that the definition of Family Child Care Home restricts the number of children in that type of facility to 5 or less. 6. That the day care use proposed by Applicant is an allowed accessory in the R-4 and R-8 districts of which the Applicant's property is zoned. 7. That the subject property is occupied by the Applicant and her family; that the yard is completely fenced; that the property does not have irrigation canals or facilities in the area. 8. That sewer and water is already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 9. That there was written testimony submitted both in favor and in opposition to the application; that the Applicant read orally two neighbors written testimonies for the Commissioners in favor of Applicant's request; that one written testimony was received in opposition; cited as grounds for objection relate to the increase in traffic and parking problems; that the day care would be excessively noisy and cause destruction to neighbors property; that Mrs. Ybarra's ability to supervise her own children FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2 was in question let alone the responsibility of caring for others, a defaming statement. 10. That the Applicant testified that the children would be supervised at all times; that her hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, no evenings or weekends. 11. That the Applicant does not live on an arterial or collector street. 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 which abut the external lot or boundary lines of the property under consideration. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant Accessory Uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on an accessory use permit. 5. That 11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3 9 0 Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for Accessory Use Permits; that those standards are as follows: Family Child Care Home Standards: It is the intent of this provision to provide for accessory family child care homes which will not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities, and which are located away from and properly screened from adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the children. The following conditions shall apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare -Child Care Licensing Division if required. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate. (3) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee which may be the driveway to the home. (4) Provide for child pick-up located off arterial or collector streets. (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic on arterial or collector streets. 6. The Applicant shall keep the children in the fenced yard at all times except for drop-off and pick-up times when the parents shall be required to bring the children into the Applicant's home and come into the home to pick the children up. The children shall at no time be allowed out side of the fenced area when not accompanied by an adult. 7. That the Applicant meets the conditions stated in paragraph 5, except numbers 1 and 2 and she will have to show evidence of the fence requirements; in regards to 1 she will have to obtain her license and in regards to 2 she will have to obtain the occupancy permit from the City Building Inspector. 8. That the City has judged this Application for an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4 0 0 accessory use permit upon the basis of guidelines contained above and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 9. That the State of Idaho Health and Welfare Child Care Licensing for a Family Child Care Home allows up to Six (6) children to be cared for but the ordinances of the City of Meridian only allow up to five (5) children under the Family Child Care Home. The Applicant shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) children to be cared for under this accessory use permit. 10. That applications of this nature are difficult because the ordinances say the use is an allowed accessory use if the standards are met but the neighbors strongly object. If the neighbors objections are allowed to control it is government by man not by law. The law controls and the use shall be allowed if the conditions are met. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5 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 HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED�]J VOTED VOTED X f CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED, DECISION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Accessory Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which specifically include the requirements and conditions cited in Conclusions of Law number five (5), six (6) and nine (9) set forth above, and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to annual review upon notice to the Ap icant by the City. MOTION: \ APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT(A-0 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6