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