Loading...
1994 05-10 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 12. 1994: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1994: (APPROVED) TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PRELIMINARY PLAT TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING) 2. TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: PINE MEADOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RON WALSH: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEXATION ANO ZONING REQUEST BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (APPROVED) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY AVENUE ONE: (APPROVED) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CERAMIC GIFT SHOP BY MELODY FARNSWORTH: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REOUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC.: APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PRELIMINARY PLAT TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROBERT GLENN ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY ROBERT GLENN: (APPROVED) _.__~~ 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY KEVIN HOWELL: (APPROVED) 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEELE AND SON: APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PRELIMINARY PLAT TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING) 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY MAX BOESIGER: (APPROVED) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND RECORD STORAGE BY STANLEY SMITH: (CANCELLED) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM L-O TO C-G AND R-8 BY BW, INC. AND WAYNE STOLFUS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIVISION BY FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT GLENN AND TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING) ~i MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA. TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1994: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELl1 APRIL 26, 1994: 1. TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY I,NqTERWEST DEVEL/O~PMENT ANDp~ViD COLLINS: 2. TABLED AT APRIL 12, 199 MEETING: PINE MEADOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RON WALSH: 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BRIGHTON CORPORA/TION: ~~~j1°""~ ~~~ 4 '=lC -7 L(L ~. YF C J /^ ~ ' l-~' ~~ C .~i~'~. !i. oL~--e jc :~ Zi ~~..~ 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH_ A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY AVENU~ ONE: ~fy' o1O 1~< = c/t 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF~LA~FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CERAMIC GIFT SHOP BY MELODY FARNSWORTH: a~/'~"o~=-e ~~f ? c'/t ~CCV~2 r~YC~-m ~P_ fv C/C'-" 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC.: G/'f'~~~-~ ~/~.'`~` ~:VU~-G-e cer."..-c£, ~> C/'. fi ~~n ~azu i'Z.r i+>t `)) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW F~R ROBERT GLENN ANNEXATIO AND ZONING REQUEST BY ROBERT GLENN: of ~' ~-o vP -~~ ~ G'~~ U~Qgaa Pvi tC L'2~z C,K,a e~i~i'J ~fL[h~~ R/,rt, /PCC»t. 'f'° C~C ~Z ezn IZ.2F 5 Z..'~+~-` 8. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY KEVIN HOWELL: ~tfP'°" e ~~~~ •` ~'~~ v ~2 ~ P [ o r~ . •E-v L'~C. ~a a v,~-<-f - ` Z.*rN-.,~ Yo C ~~~~'. ~-e i. ~7/a ~" 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEELE AND SON• ~cc'Yn ~ '{~ CSC' fo lca~^.zst ~. 1~- ~u~ ~C ~fu ~JrZ / ~~Q t with i~ l Jug /~j f~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1994: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1994: 1. TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: 2. TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: PINE MEADOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RON WALSH: 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY AVENUE ONE: 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CERAMIC GIFT SHOP BY MELODY FARNSWORTH: 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC.: 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROBERT GLENN ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY ROBERT GLENN: 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY KEVIN HOWELL: 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEELE AND SON: ~, J 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY MAX BOESIGER: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND RECORD STORAGE BY STANLEY SMITH: 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM L-O TO C-G AND R-8 BY BW, INC. AND WAYNE STOLFUS: 14. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIV151ON BY FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: 15. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT GLENN AND TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: ~~.- y1-z ~~ ~uZeJ ~o~- f -/2 -rl ~ ~h-e -~- ~/O~rvrie ~ ~~ ~aY~--i 7' - 26` C T ~"`'C''z~'.y> _- R,p~Gr o (/Q c~ / (a r/P~-- C."Old-C~ ~C J ~S (~<~~ Ct ff a'~e of '~v ~1 vP~'~c ~~~ ~Z ~~ ~?~aC~Ow.1.. Cd /` 6 l~ ~~ ~~~ ~~rr ~ ~~~~~~ y ~ c are ,-~.~._~,.cf~ ~-~.- 7`~ clc. c:~~f r~ ~2 -~~jC £ C°~G ~~fj ~ ~d.(/OLri~-~ ~PCOInh,-~hC~cL~?11J 7~U ~~~ ~~~rd~e ~f~' ~ e% ~'aSJ 0-~- ~tv02 w~ YE~6r,-o~.eoz~~v~._- ~ C°~~ 4~/J Y B'V-e /^7- ~j 3" ~7 ~C~ /air' r o a~ y-a' !~~ ~ ~ ~~ c~-,-~. d~A... ,~v ~'~C ~~~. a rr G-~. ~2'r /~ ac ~ ~ L e c~~-.~.-~-~wfi i,~. ~ C~ G ~rz G7i~--L~. ~ zv,,.~-~v. ~~-- ~~ GIG G',..GeH~ ~iJ _ a~~~ ~l~ ~' ~% vc-2. /tee G O ~ e~ _ ~T ~'~~ /~ ~eiwn,~e~pC . ; Z~wv.._cy .~~ ~ q %Cric ~~ ~ic,eel~ ~~~au, a.~- C~ec~Ta~-z. ~-a voz v~~'~~-n c~. -~v C'~L' ~C~ C/t'r~-Pi~L C~-..-R' Za-yw~ ~i.~.r~a'~ee ~~ ~~ ~rav~ ~~~' ~' ~~1~ 7~i~o2 v~ c ~~ ~ ~v ~/~' G~~ «~~ G J` , ® ~~ ~ /~ ~ijv2 1/C~C.G''JtiGG. ~ ~/,/c-G~- /i~CL~ !t',G~s'G~G'CC~ ~- /5- ~ fif/ Z • ~~~ f~~ ~ ~~eu ~3~ ~~~ ~2~~ s f~wu . /S.Fi~r~ ~//I02~~ /~~~ 3v~ f` L~c~~~f F~ov~ ~o~r~ lie c c-~-~-..-a-r-d fe C' - f o ~. ~.e/~C t this° ,G~s~~Pc~ Gave /~ f~c~ - ~~,or.~~.-~h-.~ ~o~- ~ ~~-~-f~ ~~3 ~ ~ ,~ ~~G~~~ ~QCO'~v~..,liL ~ ~'6'Y~ h-e <~Ifi ~ ~~ dP~e~ ~~,~/~zQ.~~ ~~ ~~2~ h~ ~ ~ / t~ih,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~: ~/~- ~~' ~, ~Qt~c~ ~~iv~ (~v~~ i~~ ~~~~ - /~'tOrC? ~~~- a~-e ~tcGedf ~-~. Gocc~Jf c~zv~ve, c~ ~ fy'a,-~~~=- ~~~r~f~ ~~ ~h - h-e,~c~ ,J~-i~r ~'em ~.~lr~~ G~~~/~ ~'~,~ ~~~.~--Lip j~ ~'Phr~~ /emu ~ ~ c'v-n ~~.. - d~~~h- d~~r.r~~ ~'©Yie~~ ~ ~~r4'i~ibns ~` r~T~`iz~i~Z~ ~/~ ~~~~ cis a~~ ~~ 5~~~ ~r ~~~ ~f~' ~acud~ ~/'`~~e G2.'e~ s ~ ~ ~ eet ~~~~o`ed~~ f, v~ ~l~ ~~'~ s~lc~ - ~u ~e ~~ S ~e~- - ~~ r~ fjG c°~~/lPCt~~G Lcc ~'~e~ tl~ O~z~Lr~. ~J~~~a-e-t~ /boo ~ '~~o~ooo - lO~j o~U ti u-ec~~' ~ ~~ f ~~D, ~O ~cT,n2-2~ 1~.,~-~, ~~ch~.~:~..~ - ~-~~~~~- ~u~ ~~z~ 7~ C'~n~z-C~ ~~~ ~~~a 122~z~~~ ~~38 ~~`~~~~~ ~° ~ ~~ ~'~G ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ -~~-- ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ free ~ ~K-,~~.r~~.-~ ~/~,d h'1adf~h., l5 /~~u/ ~¢oo d ~-¢ ~o-t° ,~~~v -- ~~~ ~s~ a ~ePSS~~'~u b ~n~ lC ~CGl6? ~ o"h.. - ~r~fP.s~ acc~sl /_~r0 fPlf ,1`u~Gl~j//l/~iv ~ p' ~G~~ ~, C'om,~ - ~~~ :Selz a-a-(',r J"C~6~B~ ~~~z~g-~.e evx~~ 1~~~~~ G~~d - r z ~«s ~~~- ~~~ a ~ _, ~~~~tG~~ ~ze~ l~~y ~~ ~rz ~.ee Czc~~ e a-~ - ~~ ~%!~ /~-; ~: /,LC~/,~ -- ~cc~ss ©h ~ihe. d~~ ~~ l/e~Ofl~,~.e~ rc,ePdf fv ICJ `P,I~'~~Jid-~~, ,~~o ~cia~e~- ~ ra f~~~~ces GG~~~-ne ~~rre~ ._._ 3 ~-~//i~~~f,~d'~,~ ~~~"20 ~~f~Q ~~ ~~ ~ r ~~~ri/~ ~~~is ~y,fite / ~ ~~T via ~ ~ V h,~~es ~~~;~~~~ ~c ~ ~~ree z` ~C.ce s1` ' J~9~~ ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~ru ~~ f ~ ~ v~~~~ j-e~ ~/r ~a~~z -- c~~l?~~- ~-~~~~ ~~~~~~`-vim--~ ~.~ ~~s~~~c~ ~~~ r~ ~r/~e fdr~~- ~c ~ ~ r~~ y;Ve ~ ~ ~~y c~~ ~~- r~ ~~ ~~:~s ~~~ff ~~~~~ ~~ 6ze ~~ ~ ~ fC`~~~'D l C,,~C'~c~u~ fc,~~ re~~ y ~~~ --- rr~V;~ ~P~/J ~~9~ ~fl ~~~ - ~r~~U ~~ ~ .~~~~ ~Pce~--~..~r d~ ~~~~h~ ~~`~ ~ ~ ~~, ~~ ~U o ~%'~~2-fie; ~'_ ~~C ~~~~~~~ 1,~~,r- Grp . ~,~u~. c e_.~ ~ GGZe~ ~~ ~1-~~-`s ~~ ~~~-~=s MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 10 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Johnson, Bev Berges, Cheri Wallau, Sue Show, Ron Show, Marshall) and Mary Smith, Ted Hanson, Mr. & Mrs. C. L. Morgan, Jolynne Cavner, A. Witherell, Jim Witherell, Charlie Younger, Ron & Bonnie McKague, Reece & Belle McMillan, Marvin Everett, Bob Nichol, Wayne S. Forrey, Thomas Geile, Archie Roberson, Mr. Mrs. Larry Couch, Mr. & Mrs. Mike Franklin, Mr. & Mrs. Morgan Plant, Sue Sheehan, Tina Morris, Joan Priest, Alerdie Cannon, Melody Farnsworth, Ron Walsh, Wanda & Leroy Rivers, Mike Preston, Bev Donahue, Ron Burnham, Kathy Burnham, Elwood Rennison, Kenneth Tetrault: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1994: Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions are additions? Rountree: Do you want these page by page, or do you want me to hand them in to Will. Most of them are typos, transpositions. Johnson: If they are just typos just hand them to Will, unless they are significant? Rountree: No Johnson: Entertain a motion then. Alidjani: 1 make a motion that we approve the minutes of April 12, 1994. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting held April 12, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1994: Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions? Entertain a motion. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the special meeting held April 26, 1994. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 2 Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the special meeting of April 26, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: Johnson: We have some recently received comments from Gary Smith, do you all have those? We have conducted our public hearing on this issue. There are comments from Shari Stiles our Planning & Zoning administrator which recommends tabling or denial and also from Gary Smith. Have you had an opportunity to review those? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, have we had findings of fact on this with respect to the annexation and zoning? Johnson: Do we, I don't believe we do. The minutes reflect that we just tabled this issue and did not ask for those to be prepared. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared with respect to the annexation and zoning request on this. Johnson: Well, we have a motion, it either dies for lack of a second or we have a second before we have discussion. Alidjani: I'll second Johnson: It is moved and second we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions for annexation and zoning only, any discussion. Alidjani: I have some questions for Shari. I have read what you have here but what is your general feeling about what is going on. You have already had some discussion with the applicant or the engineer and the representative of the applicant, I would like to know what the response was. Why has it been delayed and delayed and tabled already for some of the documents that was not prepared at time and still is not prepared according to your notes. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 3 Stiles: Commissioner Alidjani and Chairman and Commissioners, the last 2 times this has been on the agenda there were items brought up the night of the meeting that we weren't able to address. And then we did get another submittal last meeting that basically my comments were pretty much the same. There are a lot of things that are the same, that have been expressed to them before that need to be addressed. I might be confusing some of it with Haven Cove No. 4 but it is similar. Alidjani: Thank you Johnson: Do we have further discussion, we have a motion on the floor and a second. Okay, all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, do we have to speak to the preliminary plat? Johnson: Do you want to speak to the plat? Rountree: I would make a motion that we table the plat as presented until all the problems associated with it are resolved with the City staff. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat until such time as the issues raised have been addressed. Rountree: Make that the next regularly scheduled meeting. Johnson: Which is June 14, 1994, do we have a motion? Rountree: So moved Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded then that we table the preliminary plat until our next regularly scheduled meeting on June 14, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED AT APRIL 12, 1994 MEETING: PINE MEADOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RON WALSH: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 4 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Counsel on this particular issue, it appears that they have changed the zoning request. Would these item have to be reheard? Crookston: It should be if they changed the requested zoning, what have they changed. Hopper: From Mixed PUD to R-15, is that right? Rountree: That is what their indicates. Crookston: Shari do you know how this was noticed? Stiles: Commissioners, this originally went out as an MPUD and I'm not sure the second notice was (inaudible). I was wondering if this is one that could be handled at the City Council public hearing, if that would be adequate. If the Commission is acting on it tonight as an R-15 request. Crookston: I don't recall how 1 handled in the findings, and I don't have a copy of the findings here tonight. Stiles: I don't think there were any findings, it was tabled because of a request for a MPUD. Johnson: We didn't have any. Rountree: The table motion was because they had not identified the zone and until such time as they did. Crookston: It probably should be reheard. Stiles: Before this Commission? Crookston: Yes Johnson: It was originally tabled because it didn't come in with a zoning right? Rountree: That is correct. Stiles: We do have some others that are in this similar plight. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 5 Crookston: That are? Stiles: That since the initial hearing have requested other than what was first noticed. Crookston: Were they requested as PUD's? Stiles: I am thinking of St. Luke's. Crookston: We could handle it at the City Council level it would be more appropriate to notice it correctly. We don't have a PUD zone. Stiles: So your decision is to rehear it before the Commission? Crookston: I think that is the appropriate thing to do. Stiles: It was City staff that instructed them to ask for the MPUD, just to note that. Crookston: Well, we have had the public hearing, we could go forward and change it and make sure it is done correctly at the City Council. Johnson: What would you like to do Commission? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on Pine Meadows annexation and zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Johnson: You have the findings of fact before you, are there any items of discussion? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have one. I don't believe I saw any place in here, it was Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 6 mentioned the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1300 included in the house size, however all the other R-8 subdivisions in that particular area have all been restricted to a 1350 square foot minimum. So, I think that needs to be a stipulation on the final conclusions. Johnson: Anything else? Hepper: No. I don't remember reading here if there was anything about duplexes or multiple family housing in the R-8. If that wasn't mentioned it also needs to be included. Johnson: I don't see them in the findings. Anybody else have any comment? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law with the stipulation that the house sizes be a minimum 1350 square feet and no duplex lots to be allowed. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact with the 2 stipulations, 1350 square foot per home and no duplexes in the R-8 zoning, all those in favor, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above of 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 the all ditches, canals, waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as conditions of annexation and that the applicant meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 7 Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council with conditions so stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY AVENUE ONE. Johnson: Any discussion or comments regarding these findings of fact as you ahavethem in front of you prepared by the City Attorney? What is your pleasure? Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Alidjani -Yea, Shearer -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation, yes (Inaudible) Johnson: Annexation and zoning I think at this point, we have to address the preliminary plat separately, is that not true? I'm sorry we were in the middle of the favorable recommendation to the City Council. Shearer: I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and the owner be specifically required to the all ditches, canals, waterways and install pressurized irrigation systems as condition of annexation and that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development time Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 8 requirements and enter into the required development agreement and if the conditions are not set that the property be de-annexed. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass on a recommendation to the City Council as stated by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We need to address the preliminary plat at this time. Shearer: Can we ask the engineer if there has been any changes to that since we received it? Roylance: No there hasn't been any changes, the only changes that were in flux last time we talked was to work with ACHD to make sure that our streets aligned with the project to the south. So, that is the only change that we are working out and that is being dictated by others more or less. Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Roylance? Shearer: I move we approve the preliminary plat when the conditions are med changing the street alignment as requested. Rountree: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat linaudiblel stated by Mr. Roylance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CERAMIC GIFT SHOP BY MELODY FARNSWORTH: Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Meridian Planning & Zoning hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 9 law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC.: Johnson: Page 14, item 17 we still have the "net" "not" in there, I thought we had it taken care of? Crookston: I did Johnson: Are there any other changes? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion there at the time of the meeting about setting up a homeowners association to maintain the common area rather than leaving that to individual homeowners. We also had a question about the width of a landscape berm. I don't know if there needs to be any further discussion on that. Johnson: Well, it is not a public hearing. Hepper: Well, I wondering if the other commissioners had any thoughts on that? I personally don't think that leaving the landscape berm area up to the individual property owners is the best way to go on that. Johnson: Did we address that in the findings, what page? Rountree: It is on page 12, bottom of item 9. • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 10 Hepper: What about the berm, is it mentioned? Crookston: No Johnson: That is not the type of wording you like, is that what you are saying, or what are you saying? Hepper: That is fine on that. I think we need to also address the landscape berm, because as I remember they had a very narrow landscape berm. Johnson: Is that specifically addressed Wayne? Crookston: No it is not. Hepper: Could that be passed onto City Council to address the landscape berm? Crookston: It could or you could amend the findings. Rountree: It actually says that they will enter into an agreement to address landscaping. Johnson: Do you want to amend that? Hepper: Yes, I want to amend item 9 towards the end where it says the development agreement will also address landscaping and berm width add berm width along Ten Mile Road. Johnson: Alright, and the rest of it is satisfactory to you? Hepper: Yes Johnson: I will entertain a motion then. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions as amended. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney with the one amendment regarding the berm width, roll call vote. • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 11 ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install pressurized irrigation system as conditions of annexation and that the applicant meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we pass on a favorable recommendation with respect to the preliminary plat. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation. Rountree: Just a point we would Tike to see the plat amended to include the landscape berm and width since it doesn't at this point in time and a common lot. Hepper: Does that need to be addressed now or can that be amended by staff? Johnson: Either way, do you want to change your motion or let your motion stand. Hepper: I think I would like to withdraw my motion, I think I would like to see a preliminary plat that is revised to show those things. Johnson: Re-state it if you wish. • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 12 Hepper: I move that we hold on the preliminary plat until we see a revised preliminary plat until the next meeting. Johnson: Is that a table of this item until the next regular meeting? Hepper: Yes, the next meeting, I'm not sure what the date is. Johnson: It would have to be for our next regular meeting it is too late for our special meeting. Hepper: What is the date of our next meeting? Johnson: June 14, we have to table it to a date sir. Hepper: Table it until June 14 Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table action on the preliminary plat until we receive a revised plat and address that at our next regularly scheduled meeting on June 14, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROBERT GLENN ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY ROBERT GLENN: Johnson: You have the findings of fact in front of you, are there any corrections, any discussion? Rountree: As I recall the applicant indicated they would pursue looking at possible additions to or improvements adjacent to the existing park at the northeast end of the subdivision, I don't see anything in the conclusions addressing that. Crookston: There aren't I didn't recall that. Johnson: 1 didn't hear your comment Wayne. Crookston: It is not addressed in the findings I didn't recall that. Johnson: Would you like to include that in your motion? • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 13 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, there were some problems involved also with the people that were paying for the park with fees and obviously the people in this subdivision are going to end up using that park whether it is set up that way or not. I think we should do something to help relieve the situation somehow. Johnson: What do you have in mind? Shearer: I know what the problem is, I'm not sure what the solution is. Hepper: We have some comments Jim, from Shari on item 15 on the preliminary plat on this thing that addresses that a little bit. Shearer: I've got it here if I dig enough. Johnson: Would you like to amend the findings in anyway at this time? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact with the amendment included in the conclusions that the applicant will explore improvements to or additions to the existing park on the northeast corner adjoining this subdivision. Johnson: We have a motion. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the amendment to regarding the park on the northeast corner, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to pass onto the City Council gentlemen. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 14 Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY KEVIN HOWELL: Johnson: Any discussion or corrections regarding these findings of fact? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Alidjani -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Rountree -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation for the City Council? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install pressurized irrigation systems as conditions of annexation and that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement and if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 15 Johnson: We need to deal with the preliminary plat. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council for Rock Creek subdivision. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEELE AND SON: Johnson: Any changes, discussion, corrections to the findings of facts as prepared by the City Attorney? Rountree: Page 4, item f in the summation of Mr. De Weerd's testimony, (inaudible-. Johnson: Are you looking at number f? Rountree: Letter f Johnson: Any others? Rountree: I had a question for Gary Smith. Is Chateau functionally classified Gary. Smith: Yes, it is classified as a collector. Johnson: Is that your only question? Thanks Gary. Any further questions or discussion? Rountree: I would like to consider an amendment to the conclusions that the functional classification and use of Chateau be included for information, wherever Council sees fit to include it. Johnson: Any other amendments? (End of Tape) Rountree: (End of Tape) hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 16 conclusions as amended. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney with the amendment, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation for the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We have a preliminary plat on this also. Rountree: In the discussion of the preliminary plat there were several changes that the engineer was going to make with respect to pedestrian paths between culdesacs, landscaping berms, t believe some sidewalk further down Linder, some possible adjustments to some of the culdesacs. I would recommend that we table action on the plat until applicant has had an opportunity to incorporate the conditions that are in the findings of fact on the annexation and we have an opportunity to review them. And I so move. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat until such time as the items previously addressed regarding the plat are addressed by the applicant. That would be tabled to a date certain of June 14, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 17 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY MAX BOESIGER: Johnson: Any discussion, amendments, clarifications needed on the findings of fact? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation for the City? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for the applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission please do so at this time, you need to be sworn. Mike Preston, 420 Bitteroot, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Preston: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, you will recall this same application a couple of months ago and at that time I had requested the wrong zone. I don't know if you have that zone I requested at this time or not. Anyway I have come back before you with an R-15 and a CN zone in place of the mixed PUD zone that I originally requested. And because I had the delay I took the opportunity to modify the layout subject to hopefully some of the neighbors concerns about the project. I am hoping that some of the things I changed will help rectify some of their problems. Basically speaking I put the plat up before you. The streets in the original application were all private streets without curb, gutter and sidewalks. With this application it is a standard subdivision meeting all City requirements and all streets will be public streets dedicated to Ada County Highway District and all lots will be sold to the owners of the homes. And that is a complete change from what we had before. Essentially the street patterns are very similar to the way it was before with just minor modifications, we still have the commercial zoning at the Locust Grove and Franklin Road. One major difference is I provided landscape buffer .along Franklin Road of 35 feet in conformance with your ordinance. Another change that I made is a buffer of 25 feet between my existing neighbors on the east, the 4 neighbors on the east and the lot, that is a 25 foot strip through there that will be landscaped and irrigated. Other than that it is very similar, the same layout. Before I had 139 lots, now I have 131 lots with 3 commercial lots. I decided I might as well put each one of those buildings on a separate lot so I added 3 lots there. That pretty well explains and we went through it before. All services will be public underground utilities etc. Now, I would like to very briefly comment on Ms. Stiles' staff report in relation to the conditions. Item #2, in Shari's letter of May 9, she indicates that the landscape buffers required are for the benefit of the public and as a screen for a low density residences, I agree with that, not the homeowners of this subdivision, I don't know why it wouldn't also be a benefit to the homeowners 1 certainly hope so, it is an extremely expensive thing and I would like to give them the advantage as well. We show that the fence along this easement is on the property line and I believe if I read the letter right that the fence requested by Shari, it should be on the opposite side of Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 19 the easement. In other words on the other side of the property line, 25 feet. That would really create a maintenance problem I would think and I think what the buffer zone is for is to keep the houses further away from the neighbors and that is what we have accomplished regardless of where the fence is. The trees that I am going to put in here will be up above the fence and enjoyed by them and the house that we, the nearest home that we can put to their property line instead of being 15 feet will now be 40 feet because of this buffer zone. The setback is from the easement so that moves the house further away. But, I would hope to have each homeowner just maintain that landscaped area clear back to the property line. If it is, if the fence here on their property line and a fence and a long skinny easement that would be very difficult to maintain and would be non-usable essentially. So, that is a consideration 1 would like input on and I haven't, there may be some other thing I could work with neighbors and improve. As I stated at the earlier hearing I was totally willing to do that. I don't know what their concerns and they might have 4 different concerns. Well, we could handle it 4 different ways and I would be willing to do that. On item 4, towards the tailend of that sentence, Shari says no set plans for the proposed CN have been presented, this area should not be annexed and zoned until satisfactory details including floodplain and engineering studies have been completed and submitted to the City. Now, in relation to the floodplain, Mr. Smith also addressed that. And in relation to the Corps of Engineers map there is a floodplain you can fill, floodway. Your ordinances does not allow construction, I talked to Gary about this. By the very definition of what a floodway is, that line is wrong on their map, but I'm not asking you to accept that. I am just asking you to allow me to go work with the Corps to get them to change their line, because I know it is wrong. Because there are 2 culverts there they ignored the fact that they were there and the floodway is not where they show it to be. If they change their map that shows it is not in the floodway, it will definitely be in the floodplain but not the floodway. Then it would be allowable for me to build in, if I don't accomplish that then I would ask this commission and the Council to put condition on no construction in the floodway period in relation to your ordinance and can't build, if I do get it changed though I should be allowed to. It is really an error on their map, at least that is my opinion. Both Gary and Shari addressed the fact, I've got some sewer running across in an easement from one right of way to another. Gary had conditions that he requested and also Shari did too and a couple of suggestions that is very workable. I might have to modify that, I would request that you put a condition on this approval that I can't do what I show and then I will come in. That is in the second phase, it is probably a couple years away anyway. I will have time to modify that, chances are the sewer will be in Locust Grove as Gary suggested and then we can run it away and it will relieve the problem entirely where I would have the opportunity to extend it up Locust Grove and do the same thing myself. That is very solvable, it is not anything that should hold up the plat as long as the condition says I can't do it the way that • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 20 I have shown it. Item 7, that is a big concern. I read the School District's letter a few months ago and I read the School District's letter this time. They, I don't read that they ask for you to deny, they certainly aren't welcoming it with open arms. The schools are overcrowded. I can't solve that, there is no place for a school site on this property, I can't be responsible for providing impact fees unless all other developers do. If that is the way it works I am totally agreeable to that, but I can't understand, I mean there is no question there is a problem, but the same problem existed 2 weeks ago or 2 months ago and there was no comment, maybe you changed your policy that is entirely possible. But anyway, I can't solve the school problem, waiting a month isn't going to help. Johnson: With respect to that, before you go on further, did you read their May 10 letter? Preston: Is that the one in the packet? Johnson: Well, yes the third paragraph says considering these facts Meridian School District cannot recommend approval. Preston: I have an April 22 Johnson: This is dated May 10, which would be today. Preston: Well, in their 22nd letter they weren't recommending you approval for sure. Item 8, R-15 districts must abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor. I'm proposing an open space corridor along Franklin in compliance with your Comprehensive Plan, I assume as other parcels develop that will continue on and get it to the City park, but there is no other public facility in this area. So, there is nothing I can put an open space to and due to the fact that I changed to a subdivision with a City Park about a 112 mile away I chose not to have a park in this development. In item 9, the preliminary plat should show all easements, placing of fencing and pedestrian access to adjacent subdivision or future subdivisions. On the preliminary plat I have a note that says that all easements requested by any agency will be provided. So at this time there might be some unusual ones needed so I didn't put any on, but they will all be provided at the final plat stage and the note states that. Placing of fencing, the preliminary plat also clearly shows the fence that I propose, now 1 may have it in the wrong location but at least I showed it. Pedestrian access to adjacent subdivisions, the only pedestrian access I am providing is along the stub street to the west. There isn't anything around me to go to so I would have absolutely no idea where to provide it. Item 10, adequate fire hydrants and street lights need to be shown, I show fire hydrants and according to Mr. Smith they need Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 21 to be at 400 foot, I assumed 500 foot so I will need to add a few. Just a note requirement that fire hydrants need to be a 400 feet and street lights at intersections will provide anything in relation to the City requirements. Now, the main thing that I wanted to discuss was the summation in Ms. Stiles report, it says I quote,"in light of the unavailability of public services," the only public service that she is talking about is schools in relation to what the school district said, "the lack of detail presented," and that is fences, pedestrian access and easements, but they are all accounted for, "and problems with the floodplain floodway development," there is no problem with the floodplain because I will fill that and be above it I will not build in the floodway so that also is not a problem, "I recommend that this preliminary plat be tabled or denied until these items are satisfactorily addressed. Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing, this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain/ enhance the quality of life for all residents. Have new growth finance public service expansion or prevent school overcrowding." Now in relation to not having growth finance public service expansion 1 would just like to comment that I have to extend about 4,000 feet of water main down someone else's property to get to this that other people will get to use and I have to pay a large assessment to get the sewer here along with the St. Lukes's hospital people. And in relation to impact fees through Ada County Highway District this project will pay in the neighborhood of S 130,000 along with all the taxes that will come from each homeowner. So, I have to disagree with that statement. I don't know what she means that the plan will not maintain and enhance the quality of life for all residents. I meet the subdivision ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan as stated in a previous recommendation so I am not sure what that means. I am not preventing school overcrowding 1 don't know how to do that other than like it has always been done in the past and that is pass the bond elections and have these folks pay for it. I've got to state that it is not the developer, I am providing berms and buffers and impact tees and all of that sort of thing. I have to finance that, I am not paying it, it is the homeowners that pay it. It is not me, so we need to understand that. These same homeowners are going to pay the same taxes you and I do. So, with that. Johnson: Before you move from Shari's comments, I didn't hear you address her comment regarding covenants, have you gone that far have you gotten he covenants? Preston: I assume that is a requirement of the final plat, before the final plat can be approved. Johnson: It is. Preston: We don't have any at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 22 Johnson: Go ahead, do you have anything else? Preston: I just want to reserve the right to come back with rebuttal if I might. Johnson: Yes, we may have some questions for you. Any questions from the Commission for Mr. Preston? Rountree: You are still proposing modular housing, or are you going to go to stick built? Preston: There is a home on the property now that was going to be converted to the office, it is a 5150,000 home and I am going to sell that home. I will probably build all the homes adjacent to it and clear it around that front end, stick built high end type homes. The homes in the back, I would like to reserve the right to be manufactured housing on footings with garages. You can't tell the difference, they are going to be all textured sheet rock inside. They are actually better built homes than most stick built homes today. They have better quality materials as I stated before. These are not mobile homes with the pre-fab panels and so forth on them. That is not what we are talking about here. You cant' tell these homes for any others, and they make them up to 2400 square feet, they are very nice homes. They cost a lot of money when they are that big. Now one thing I didn't state before Mr. Chairman was that a lot of the 4 neighbors that are adjacent to me had specific concerns and I under stand them. The majority of the people that testified were across Locust Grove in another subdivision. I just want to make it clear that I don't know what their homes are over there, they might have extremely nice homes. I think I made a comment that the homes I was providing were equal in value to the homes adjacent to me. I was referring to the 4 homes that I looked at. I don't know what is across Locust Grove, if anyone mis-understood that I apologize. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Preston before we call on the public? Gary Smith, did you have an opportunity to address the floodplain area with any other applicant on this property. Do you know anything since you made your recommendation #8 here? Anything further on that as far as your map goes, he is still in the floodplain. Anyone else like to address the commission at this time please come forward. Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Plant: I recommend that the Commission reject this subdivision and application. It still is not in compliance, it is not compatible with the properties it is surrounding or the property surrounding it. I feel that this would probably cost us property de- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 23 valuation of 5100,000. We have a 5 acre lot right across the road which would be affected directly and indirectly and I would request that the Planning & Zoning Commission reject this approval. If they would like to come back with compatible housing to fit the area then I would look at it in a different light. Thank you. Rountree: I have a question, you indicated you would be willing to look at it in a different light with compatible housing. What is that in your mind? Plant: Large footage area, individual owned lots, large lots, get the density down to the surrounding property levels. Rountree: Large lots, you are indicating 1 /2 acre, 1 acre, 2 acre, 5 acre? Plant: I am indicating anything above a 1 /4 of an acre. Build an appropriate styled house for that size of a lot. Rountree: Thank you Johnson: How many square feet in a 1 /4 of an acre, quickly? Rountree: Little over 10,000 Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Robert Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: I would like to also recommend that the Commission deny this application. I think that our whole area is a unique area in the fact that it is already acreaged subdivisions plus acreaged homesites along Locust Grove Road. I see now that the change if I might go to the template, (inaudible) in the upper area along the back side of out lot lines, along this little barrier line here. This is also our irrigation lateral. It comes through right here where our delivery from Nampa Meridian right at this point and comes down concrete ditch and comes across the back of our lots. It goes across Locust Grove Road, or Franklin Road and serves 2 1 /2 acres that now belongs to (inaudible) he isn't here and has never testified. I would also like to point out that there is a 10 foot berm barrier along side of this person's lot. This 2 1'/2 acres is mine, I have no indication of a barrier here and there is 1,2,3, 4,5 lots indicated in this acre again. The density that has happened in Meridian right now is getting to be a crying shame. I have lived here all my life (inaudible) I think it is about time we started cutting down. Eagle is going through this same problem right now and they are starting to reduce their, increase their lot size and I think this site in Meridian • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 24 would be a fine site to do that. We are already into that type of development there. Now with Greenhills, Locust View Heights and the few of us that are scattered along that site. I also would like to point out on the south side is 40 acres of ground that is developable and probably will be developed in a short time. There is no cushion or barrier from that or no access allowed for that for future. So Locust Grove would be the only way to get into that. That property is owned by 2 different individuals but it is going to be developed. It is now farmland, it also borders the property that is behind us now that is where the police academy is. I think that the land that is there is really nice to be developed as Mr. Plant said at least 1 /4 acres, but recommendation would be a 1 /3 as a minimum. I thank you. Johnson: Do you have any questions of Mr. Smith? Rountree: You indicated that there is 40 acres to the south that is going to be developed, do you have any knowledge of what that development is going to be? Smith: I have heard some rumors, I think if I recall (inaudible- owns 20 of it another neighbor down the road owns 20, it is all being farmed by him at this time. It is just speculation that I am hearing. If this goes through probably the development wouldn't be very far down the road. Rountree: Do you know what type? Smith: I have no idea/ Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Elwood Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rennison: Commissioners, gentlemen, I would like to recommend the Commission deny the application as being presented tonight. Meridian is being shown throughout the state as being the fastest growing town in the state. And the growth is astounding as we can see around the area here. And this subdivision really won't help that at all. Houses being so closely densified in such a small area. The storm sewer system for this property hasn't really been discussed on how it is going to discharge. It appears with the ground contours and the layout of property and lands it would discharge into the Five Mile Creek which is a continued year round flowing stream. And in the winter time it gets quite low, with all of the wash down you get from streets and driveways it will go directly into Five Mile Creek which sure isn't a very good enhancement for the wildlife that may be in place for the Federal wildlife Act for that area. The lack of information on the homes is rather disappointing, the • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 25 last presentation the gentleman he had very little information maybe a little pamphlet on the mobile type homes that would be set up there. And I think there needs to be more input put into this before the presentation is even considered. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Rennison? Anyone else? Sherrie Wallace, 2180 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wallace: I moved to Cadillac 3 months shy of 2 years from Boise after living there 10 years and I live right near the developer on McMullen so I am familiar with where he lives. And I moved to Meridian for the quality of living that we have and we all basically in that that neighborhood want to have bigger properties. I would like to see if it is going to go through 1 /2 acre properties and homes like that on the property on that size lot. The last thing I saw in the mail was there was going to be a gas station and a car wash, I don't know if that has been changed or not. Right there on Locust Grove and Franklin and I could see a lot of even more traffic and problems on Locust Grove. Right now it is a nice community, there is wildlife, geese and rooster pheasants and every kind of thing you enjoy out in the country. If you add all that extra housing it is going to disappear. Johnson: Any questions? Is there someone else? Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fox: I lived out there for approximately 20 years, there has been talk of subdividing this area. Directly south of this subdivision and to the east on the other side of Locust Grove approximately 60 acres, that has been surveyed twice in the last 2 years. That I suspect from rumors I hear they want to subdivide down the road here within the next 5 years. If you go to this type of subdivision in this small of area, 60 acres will take about 250 homes in there. And the impact is not withstanding in that area. Locust Grove and Franklin at this time has a minimum of 1 accident a year, sometimes 2. (Inaudible) Since traffic has gotten heavier on Franklin, for the first 5 to 10 years I was out there we didn't have more than 2 accidents. Now there are 2 accidents a year now on that corner. I recommend you deny the subdivision. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Anyone else? McMillan Reece South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Reece: (Inaudible) there was a discussion on access to and from this subdivision. It was stated it would be a one out Franklin Road and also stated there would be one out South Locust Grove Road. Within the next 5 to 7 years there is going to be an • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 26 overpass built on Locust Grove which will increase the traffic, there is no telling how many more (inaudible). (Inaudible) for all us people who have lived there all these years trying to get into our places and Franklin Road, increase in the kids, animals and everything else out there. And also the commercial property on the corner, I (inaudible) gas station on the edge of a residential area. Where everything is set up residential 1 acre or more lots. So as far as I am concerned I wish they would reject this whole proposal. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public like to come forward at this time please? Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I would like to address some of the items on this plat that he talked about. He is talking about the water and the sewer and the cost of such. This is a normal occurrence that you would have as a developer and anybody that would come later on to hook onto this is also going to pay fees, and the fees go to the City or whoever is in charge of it. I would like to move over here and point to some items. Before as I remember he only had this access to South Locust Grove right here, now I see another one coming out here. The (inaudible) right just below that hill out there. And this is really getting to be a problem coming out of South Locust Grove this is 55 miles an hour and suddenly go to 35 which they don't address for people coming westbound. And they are passing us on a double line there when we are waiting to make a left turn. He has another exit here and I don't see how his commercial proposition would work here with the linaudible). Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else? Marshall Smith, 398 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman and the Commission I am going to start out by scolding you. I am going to scold you in the same manor that my mother used to scold me. It wasn't what I was about to do but what 1 might have done and she would scold me to impress my mind that she didn't want me to do it. I am scolding you not for what you have done but I'm afraid you might do which is approve this application. Now let me go further and compliment you and say that we need you. We are your neighbors and patrons. We depend upon your judgement from the input that we have put on these public hearings which whole heatedly approve ot. And you protect us so we will not be hairwhipped in our property values by somebody who wants to make a quick buck and leave by high density zones and things that are deplorable to our way of life and our property values. Anybody in this room can tell you that • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 27 that kind of a density is going to bring on a youth crime problem. It happens anytime with that kind of a density. The traffic problem is self-evident to all of us. We have traffic there now. But further more, we shouldn't, you shouldn't allow anyone to deprive us, I am a resident out there, 1 have lived there for 15 years I hope to live there when my toes curl up. And I don't expect you, because I have faith in you, to allow somebody to deprive me of the savings, we have our whole bundle in that property out there. And when I go 1 would at least like to have my widow realize some of the value of the property. It is also self-evident that these crowded developments like this drop the value of the property (inaudible-. And I would highly recommend that you consider only properties or developments that are comparable in nature. (End of Tape- Now, most developers will keep coming back with a few more goodies as our present developer and applicant has. And one of them will finally be the outrage to change the CC&R's, covenants, conditions, and restrictions and they will make it really sound tasty. And one of us might get (inaudible) because us old folks, and I am one of the old folks are probably not as troublesome, we've all blown all of our vigor earlier as a younger group of people. But, if you put and I am all for somebody living someplace and a place like this would be just dandy over in Russell Johnson's place he is selling now I understand. And there are some other folks that already do that kind of thing and there is probably not any impact at all for a place like that on that particular corner. But whatever the CC&R's are I would hope in your wisdom that you give a resounding no and put a thumbs down on this or any other applications of a like virtue or lack of virtue I might say. Thank you for listening, appreciate any questions. Johnson: Thank you Marshall, any questions for Mr. Smith? Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. I'm sorry an opportunity for rebuttal, I did offer you that didn't I. I will re-open the public hearing so we can hear Mr. Preston. Preston: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the concerns, I did leave some things out. There were numerous issues, let me start by saying that I left out the fact that we preformed a traffic study for this project. Ada County Highway District required that, I submitted a copy to Shari but it has already been through ACHD review. In relation to the commercial and traffic, the main thing I want to say is #1 this is identical of what was submitted before on all entrances. I didn't change any entrance at all. The Ada County Highway District made their recommendations and one of the requirements that I have to do that I forgot to mention is I have to put up 57,000 for future traffic light at Franklin and Locust Grove. They indicated that they were going to extend Locust Grove straight north. Now, I don't know if they are going to but that is what they told me. So that will be a cross type intersection in the future. I think everyone should realize that Locust Grove Road is truly a designated • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 28 arterial and yes it will serve that property to the south of this development and yes it will become a busy road. Franklin road is very inadequate at this time not so much because of the development but because of the commuter traffic and it it planned for 5 lanes. When that will get accomplished probably will be in concurrence with the development that I am proposing. It will take 2 to 3 years to complete this project and may improvements will be accomplished out in this neighborhood. The one thing that at least I would appreciate all the neighbors understanding because we developers do we don't come into to an area and propose housing that is totally foreign to the City. Now, it might be foreign to the neighbors, but Meridian has a Comprehensive Plan in this area that shows higher density development than what is being requested in this hearing room. And because of that, I knew what the Comprehensive Plan said before I talked to the property owners to buy this land. And because of the price of the land you have to have density, now if you didn't extend all the utilities to it yes you could like what was developed out there, the land would be a lot less expansive and you could because of septic tanks and individual wells you could have big parcels and that is why there are big parcels there. But the Comprehensive Plan clearly shows that is not what is going to be there in the future and that is an approved plan as 1 understand it. And that is why I presented what I did, what I presented is in conformance. If I meet the buffer requirements and so forth. I am willing to work with the immediate neighbors on that. But, I just wanted to explain that because it is nice but there is a lot of open space there and because it is there you might assume that it is going to remain that way, but that is a bad assumption you need to go look at the City's Comprehensive Plan to show what it is going to be in the future if development occurs. And whenever sewer and water and utilities get there then that is the time that it happens. And it is not myself that is bringing the utilities there I think it is the main reason that I can develop is because St. Luke's is getting the sewer out there, I couldn't afford to run it that far on my own. Storm water, I didn't mention that. Yes it will go into Five Mile Creek and yes I will gain all approvals necessary to accomplish that. No we will not discharge unimpeded dirty water into the creek it will have to be detained, cleaned up in accordance with specific standards. Development in contrast to what was stated does not de-value the surrounding properties it enhances it. It might de-value the quality of life for the people that live there because they have enjoyed this open space and it won't be there anymore. But it is not going to de-value their property and I want to for those immediate people screen it in a way that they will notice a depreciable difference in their living style. These 4 people that are my neighbors focus, they have a beautiful view to the northeast and that is the focus of their homes. They all have a beautiful view, I am not doing anything to hinder that I am building behind them. There will be an increase in noise but if I do that right 1 will reduce that noise level. So, I just recommend that, now one thing was stated about the floodplain, it definitely shows that a floodway exists under part of that commercial Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 29 area, if this is approved then I will work with the Corps of Engineers. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish but I don't want to even start it until I get this approved or not. If I don't get it approved then there is no reason to even start it. If 1 don't get it changed then I won't build on it. A condition that I won't build in the floodway will protect the City. So I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Johnson: Any questions? Shearer: Yes, I have a question, in your last meeting you talked about manufactured housing, now as I recall you indicated the manufactured housing you are planning to use is the same ones being used across from the current high school that they are using in that subdivision. Was that right? Preston: No. I think I used that as an example as a manufactured housing subdivision. The examples that I used and brought in here are Golden West and I doubt there is a Golden West unit in that whole subdivision. There are various degrees and qualities of manufactured houses and Shearer: And the stick built Preston: And stick built that is correct, now I should mention in relation to that I am meeting all City standards in relation to the housing. You have standards as to the size and I am meeting those. And I have stated exactly what each lot will be or at least the minimum, they might be over but I am showing you on each lot what the minimum will be built. And most homes are, or half the homes have to 1300 square feet which puts them in the roughly in the $90,000 - 5100,000 range. So, I am expecting all the homes along Franklin Road and on the rim there which will be seen by these neighbors to be in the 5125,000 range. And incidentally, I which we could go down there, they have one set up in Golden West and it is a 3 level, it is about 2200 square feet and as it is sitting there it is 580,000. It is a beautiful home, there isn't one person in this entire place that wouldn't be proud to live in it. Now, you ass the foundation, a garage, the lot, and all the utilities and so forth to go with that and that is easily 5125,000 to 5130,000. And those are the type of homes that I need to set next to the beautiful home that is on there. And I can do that because they have nice views. They will be lower value and smaller at the back. These neighbors won't see those. Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Preston? Preston: Thank you • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 30 Johnson: One last request before I close the public hearing, is there anyone else? Velma McMillan, 876 South locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. McMillan: I would just like to say anytime that you want or are in question about a park like this or whatever he calls this subdivision take a drive and go through all the trailer home parks in Meridian. And they all start out beautiful, it doesn't matter if it is owned by the individual or if they are rented. But I want you to see after you take your drive through, see how they end up after a few years and ask him if he would like to live in one of them after it has been there for a few years. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you Shearer: You know I really think that the developer as far as the housing goes, because these are built in the factory does not mean that they are trailer houses. And I think that everybody is thinking the worst. If you go out and look at the ones across from Meridian High School I defy anybody here to tell that from a stick built house built on the site. Because they are manufactured does not mean necessarily that they are bad. These are $100,000 homes McMillan: Well, I am not talking about the home building I am talking about the way it is run down after it is there. Shearer: People that pay 5100,000 for their house may or may not Johnson: Well, we appreciate your viewpoint from an architecturally standpoint. I will now close the public hearing. We need some action gentlemen, whatever you prefer. Do you have some questions of Shari Stiles or Gary Smith? I am particularly troubled by the fact that even with the time the application was submitted we do not have comments from ACRD. In view of Mr. Hanson's comments for example regarding the traffic access the hill problem it is certainly something we need to look at or at least be concerned about in the recommendation we make. It is up to you people what ever you do. Rountree: I would like to ask Shari a question, what is the status of our Comp Plan revision? Stiles: As far as the zoning ordinance? Rountree: As far as the Comp Plan, has it been finally approved and adopted by the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 31 City Council? Stiles: Yes Rountree: What, describe to me the direction the Comp Plan has identified for this area, I believe it is mixed use? Stiles: Yes, it is, it addressed combinations of many different things that would be suitable for the area. Rountree: Such as? Stiles: Office, commercial, medium to high residential. Rountree: And that is for that whole quadrant? Stiles: I think it addresses this particular 40 acres, it is orange on the map. Rountree: I can see the orange, I can't read the fine print. Stiles: The main emphasis of these areas is that they be a high quality development in keeping with the goals of the City of Meridian. Rountree: Thank you Johnson: Gary Smith, you had some lengthy comments, is there anything you would like to add or do you still have some questions in your mind concerning some items. Anything you would like to offer to us, I am getting a no. What would you like to do? Shearer: You say ACHD comments are the only ones we don't have? Johnson: I believe that is true. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when the ACHD comments come in and if they come in on time we will have it at the next meeting, if not go on to the following meeting. Johnson: Is that an acceptable motion Counsel? Crookston: Well, I would like a time period, they could come in 2 days before the next meeting and that is rather difficult, that is when I do them all. But there is Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 32 usually more than one. Shearer: Well, I think that the Attorney has to decide whether or not he has the time to do them. Johnson: You can word the motion to say that. So re-state your motion since I confused you. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law when the Ada County comments are back from ACHD. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application at such time as the ACRD comments are received, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEAS, 1 Nea (FIVE MINUTE RECESS) ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND RECORD STORAGE BY STANELY SMITH: Johnson: We are skipping item 12 because it was cancelled at the request of the applicant. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST FROM L-0 TO C-G AND R-8 BY BW INC. AND WAYNE STOLFUS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there someone representing the applicant please come forward now and address the Commission. Dan Torfin, 250 Beachwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Torfin: This request by BW Inc. is to rezone 3/4 of an acre a piece of property on Fairview from Limited Office into 2 parcels of a different zoning designation. The north parcel will be designated the request if for CG commercial and then the southerly parcel is R-8 which would be pulled into the residential development of Danbury Fair subdivision. This request is to facilitate the developemnt of a veterinarian clinic construction on Fariview avenue on the northerly parcel which is Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 33 approximately 16,000 square feet. I entertain any questions if the Commission has any. I do have a map. It is a small parcel, the red parcel right here is the one that we are requesting the commercial zone and then this is the preliminary plat for the Danbury Fair subdivision and this orange parcel will be pulled in an combined with the culdesac. And most likely provide a little bit of depth for these lots in here as a buffer from the commercial development. I got a copy of the site plan for the vet clinic which is the building sits back here with parking and an access out on Fairview. I don't know if you can all see that. Alidjani: For the portion that you are asking R-8 do you have an idea for an duplex, fourplex or are you just talking about small frontage on that single lot? Torfin: Right now it is platted, it has preliminary plat approval for single family but we have talked about in our rezone of possibly coming back in and doing some duplex townhouses which would be probably a good idea fora buffer between he developments out on Fairview. But we would have to submit a separate application request and we are not requesting that at this time. Rountree: I have a question, why are you seeking a change from L-O to C-G, I believe the L-O would allow for professional office? Torfin: On the commercial zone the veterinary clinic is a permitted use. L-O is permitted through a conditional use permit and we felt it would be better to go ahead and zone it and have the zoning. Commercial is better fitted I think for the Fairview frontage. I would like to clarify something in the staff report if I may, Shari had a comment about the Jackson Drain, that it must remain open. I would just like to clarify that it is not located on this property. It ran right along here and across here into a pipe that runs along the adjacent property. And it has now been piped across this road that services this subdivision. It is completely tiled in that area. Johnson: How much frontage is on Fairview? Torfin: There is approximately, 1've got a map, it is approximately 80 feet of frontage. The parcel actually the title of the parcel goes out to the section line, but once the right of way was dedicated it will come back 50 feet off the center line and have approximately 80 feet of frontage. Johnson: The Danbury Subdivision when we zoned that R-8 did we put the restriction on there with respect to multiple family units? Torfin: I don't believe you did, that property was annexed and zoned with R-8 back i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 34 in 1991. Johnson: And you don't recall any restrictions regarding that? Torfin: I don't recall that and I can review it before we make a proposal for that area, we could clarify that. Johnson: Questions for Mr. Torfin? Hepper: Do you have a plat or anything to of that clinic? Torfin: Yes, I will hold it up now, we have 10 parking spaces we are (inaudible). The building sits back here it is approximately 2000 square feet, we have 10 parking spaces which is about 2 spaces more than actually is required. We will landscape, and provide perimeter fencing to screen this area. Keep the front clear for sight safe access onto Fairview. Hepper: What will this area to the east be? Torfin: It will be landscaping, it is an unusual parcel so really not much just landscaping. Down here, this is what the building looks like. Hepper: Would there be any overnight kenneling of dogs? Torfin: There are kennels right in here, there will be no outside kennels. This really is not a boarding facility it is for small dogs and cats and actually the doctor that is going to lease this building is here and he might be able to answer some more specific questions about the use on how the clinic works for small animals. But as I understand it it is not a boarding facility but there may be some pets that need to stay overnight for medical reasons. Johnson: Any further questions? Thank you Dan, this is a public hearing anyone from the public like to come forward now? Bernadine Morgan, 1138 East Fairview, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morgan: What we are interested in what we are concerned about was the outside kennel and I believe he has answered that. And the fence line and everything whether it will be a cedar fence. We want to have a little protection from this building. And that is about it. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 35 Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else from the public? Where is Dan, what is the setback there? How much distance would be between their home and this? Torfin: The building is quite a ways back off the road, it is about 7 feet back and that allows for the parking in front of the building. Hepper: What about on the west side and the rear? Torfin: We have a 10 foot setback from the property line right here. Hepper: How much on the rear? Torfin: The rear is 20 feet. It will be a solid fence a screening fence with landscaping trails on the inside, shrubs and. Alidjani: Did you say then this is also on the west side? Torfin: Yes, a fence along the whole perimeter of it. Johnson: What kind of fence did you have in mind? Torfin: Cedar fence a fence that will screen visually adjacent properties. Johnson: Okay, I would like to pass a question to the vet if he is here, please come forward. Mike Peterson, 9125 McMillan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: If you could just briefly describe your operation, he made reference to a small animal clinic which means different things to different people. Peterson: I've been (inaudible) for 6 years at another clinic which is actually in a strip mall adjacent to an Ernest on one side and noise or odor was never a problem. And there are a lot of veterinary clinics in fairly commercialized areas. We will be able to definitely eliminate the problems with sound from the way we have the building designed. We would like to offer a short term boarding of dogs and cats, but not large dogs. There will not be any outdoor runs and there are other boarding facilities which are better served for longterm boarding. There are times when animals have health problems and need closer observation than many kennels can provide. Johnson: Any questions of the veterinarian? Thank you very much, anyone else Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 36 from the public like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. And it is up to you Commission. Rounvee: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIVISION BY FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: Johnson: I will now open is public hearing, is someone representing the applicant would you please come forward and address the Commission. Floyd Madsen, 5005 West Hillside Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Madsen: We propose to build a 15 lot subdivision within the Meridian impact area which is the infill area also. Upon purchasing this property I've done a lot of research into it at the time I think the gentleman's name is Wayne Forrey was the Planning & Zoning, I came in to talk with Shari Stiles who was just new at the job. And got a little guidance from them, she suggested I go to the Highway Department and also get their input into this project. Which I did and in talking to the Highway Department I followed their suggestion and the Planning & Zoning suggestion. My original intent was to have a street come off Pine Street going into the subdivision and connecting into State Street. I was informed that it is not a good idea, the Highway Department preferred that I would run State Street Extension into a culdesac and not have it go into Pine Street, Pine Street being a thoroughfare. They didn't want anymore roads going into that thoroughfare. We have followed all the guidelines, it is in an R-4 zoning, 8,000 minimum square foot, we have followed that. The only thing is we requested 1300 minimum square toot, I was notified that they would prefer 1400 square foot which is not a problem. We will provide a buffer zone as required. There is an irrigation ditch across the property which we will re-route according to the irrigation recommendations. We plan to build quality homes there, we will be the only builder. I have built many homes in Meridian and if any of you know I build a good quality home. As it is planned it would be an extension of Clarinda Fair subdivision Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 37 and it would be equal quality homes that they have in there. That is what we propose. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Madsen, are there any questions? Alidjani: Have you had a chance to look at the comments of Gary Smith? Madsen: On what? Alidjani: I have one here I will show you. Take a look at this. Johnson: Realizing you haven't had much time to look at these, these were done May 6th, 1 would imagine without putting words in your mouth that might want to address item 4, answer the question on 5 and #1. Madsen: Well, I don't know anything about that, I don't understand what they are getting to here. Johnson: Well on #5 for example any irrigation ditch our ordinance requires those to be tiled in other words piped. Madsen: Yes, I plan to do that Johnson: that is his question there, so what is the plan to pipe it, the answer would be we plan to pipe it in accordance with your requirements. Madsen: Well, that is what is says you know whatever is required that is what we will do. What we plan to do is to re-route the, pipe the ditch around the property and give an easement for that. Johnson: At first glance on this do you have, is there anything there that you have concerns about? Our ordinance requires a variance for any culdesac over 450 feet in length and yours is in excess of that. You would have to apply for the variance at the City Council level when it goes there. Madsen: Well it is longer than that because Ada County Highway Department suggested we extend it. Johnson: That is a concern for emergency vehicles and that sort of thing that is why it is limited to 450 feet. They have granted variances if they don't get too far beyond the 450 and don't' know how long yours is. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 38 Madsen: Well, I don't know Johnson: Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Madsen? Thank you, this is a a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission? Jolynn Cavenor, 1048 West State, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cavenor: Commissioner and Commission I would like to submit to you a signed petition of the are neighbors and residents of the Clarinda Fair subdivision. My personal opinion is I would like you to reject this application for a couple of reasons. First for me is when we moved to Meridian, Clarinda Fair, it was designed for family children atmosphere where children can thrive. If you route all the traffic for this new subdivision down State Street ACHD says it will probably 100 trips a day. To me Pine Street is the collector street, Pine Street should be where that traffic is collected and routed not through the subdivision. I would like to see you do a reverse culdesac for that subdivision go in off of Pine, do the culdesac to the other end of the subdivision and have the access off Pine and out of Pine instead of going through a really nice subdivision. This new subdivision is not an extension of Clarinda Fair it is a different developer. Our developer developed our subdivision in a very quality well rounded atmosphere. All of our mailboxes match, all of our light poles match. I don't think that 1400 square foot homes is the same light that our homes are built in. We are proud of our homes and we just don't want to see our property values brought down. I find it interesting that the developers here tonight all live in Boise and not in Meridian where we live. Alidjani: There is not a single developer that lives in Meridian they all live in Boise. Cavenor: Isn't that interesting, I would want to live in the subdivision where the developers live. Johnson: You couldn't afford to live there. Cavenor: That is a really good point and I want to live in the subdivision I live in. Johnson: I'm just kidding you, there are developers that live in Meridian. Cavenor: I think it is very logical that access should be granted off Pine Street and not through a subdivision. I don't understand why it is not granted off of Pine street that seems a logical place. Lot 9 would grant that access you don't have to rip down a home there is no buildings to tear down. There is enough room to put in a street. So I would submit you reject the application as it stands. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 39 Johnson: I would like to see your petition. Cavenor: There are 2 petitions, one is a protest to the subdivision, the other one is is protest to the access. Johnson: Did you get the same signatures on each? Cavenor: No, some are only in protest to the access. Hopper: I have a question, there is a street stub to the east, what would you propose be done with that street stub? Cavenor: Excuse me, where it ends, it would have been nice if it was granted when Peterson and Jenkins developed that it could have been a culdesac. ACRD original plan was to put, from my understanding I can speak for them, was for them to put State Street all the way through to 8th. That cannot be accomplished because there is a Church on 8th street and you have to blow out the church and they are not going to do that. Hopper: Did you buy your place with the understanding that there was a street stub there and that someday there would probably be another street connected to that? Cavenor: No, my understanding was it would not because the Church was going to stay. Hopper: You believe that a street stub just died out in the middle of nowhere and nothing would be ever be hooked up? Cavenor: Well, nothing until the church was gone. Hopper: I don't know, I think that is kind of naive on your part to think that a street stub would be put there with the expense of a 520,000 to 525,000 lot was sacrificed to put that street stub for traffic flow and now you are saying that you had no idea that. Cavenor: No, 1 didn't say I didn't have any idea, the impression given to us when we purchased our home was the farmer that owned that lot that he would never sell. And we knew of course that would never happen. The other item is the church is there and we knew a long time in coming because that church is going to stay. They have added on, put in parking and we knew it was going to stay for awhile. I am not so much opposed to the subdivision, the new subdivision going in. The issues are it Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 40 is not an extension of Clarinda Fair, it is a total separate development. I understand that their covenants (End of Tape) His original application was fora 1300 square foot home, the homes in Clarinda Fair average around 1750 that was a concern. If he is going to build lower end homes, it is not an extension. It is not an extension of our homes. Hopper: But there are some houses by the entrance of Clarinda Fair that are down about 1500. Cavenor: There are, right off on Pine because of the size of the lots. And his size of the lots are comparable to that so we know that those homes are going to be smaller homes. If it is a separate subdivision I feel it should have a separate entrance. If you route all that traffic down 11th street, that is the street where all the junior high kids travel. What are you going to do with a hundred more kids or a hundred more cars. They are saying a hundred more in our lines of traffic everyday and all those kids travelling to school. 1 think you get the cars out on Pine Street where the traffic should travel right away. Hopper: You have to talk to the Highway District on this. Cavenor: We went to the meeting last Friday. Hopper: Are they at all responsive? Cavenor: They want to limit the accesses and so they had Mr. Madsen extend the culdesac down further to the south. Which I don't think is appropriate, it is a separate subdivision. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? Mark Cannon, 1090 West State Street, was sworn by the City Attorney Cannon: I would like to start off by saying that I also protest the development of this subdivision and protest the access through Calrinda Fair. I would like to also address Commissioner Hopper's question that he addressed to Jolynn, I kind of feel like that question is addressed to me also since I live on State Street. When I moved into that subdivision Clarinda Fair, I realized there was a stub there and there could be some potential for that road to go through to the subdivision that would be developed adjacent to us. At that time I did assume that if they did develop a subdivision there it would be comparable to ours first of all. Second of all 1 never dreamed there would be only access through our subdivision being that Pine is a major street. I always Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 41 assumed that subdivision would have access off of Pine and maybe we would have access through their subdivision to Pine also. So, I can see maybe the potential for having access through both although I would personally not like to see that. But in no time could I see the only access to their subdivision should be through Clarinda Fair. Our subdivision is unique it was developed for high class homes. All of our mailboxes are gold in color and they match and we have our nice lamp posts and everyone maintains the yards at a high standard. My wife and I have one of the smallest homes in the subdivision at 1680 square feet. There are a few homes that they built around 1500 square feet at the start of the subdivision and the entrance because of the size of those lots. And again the size of lots that will be developed in the subdivision are all that size. So, those homes will have to be in the 1500 I guess if the subdivision now will have to be in the 1500 minimum. They are all going to have to be right in that range. And I guess we would like to have kids in the future and realize that traffic that will be going only through State Street would cause a lot of problems in that subdivision. Now, if they had access also through Pine 1 would imagine most of the individuals that are going to live in this subdivision would choose to access through the Pine entrance. I cannot imagine anyone would want to go all the way around and come through our subdivision so I always assumed that time that we would not have any major traffic through there. I would also like to ask you a question if I can, does that make sense to you what I am saying. I would like some feedback on that. Hepper: I think the City would like to see at least the City Engineer and the City Planning Director both say that they would like to see access onto Pine Street. So, I think the City is in agreement, it is Ada County Highway District that disagrees. Cannon: I'm not sure what can be done about that, I just want some protection from you. And then also, as far as the actual subdivision goes and the quality of homes that are going to be built there I would hope that we could propose that those homes be more comparable to ours. So those are the 2 things I am opposing here today. Johnson: Thank you Larry D. Cook, 1128 West State Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cook: First, Commissioners let me say I agree with the prior comments about the traffic. I guess that will be a more serious problem when I get run over out there. There are some other questions I would like to ask that have to do more with what I have absorbed here this evening of all the prior approvals and recommendations. One of them is schools. We don't have the facilities and right now our school board is saying you guys can't tell us or the City staff can't tell how many students they are Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 42 going to have. So they are driving around counting foundations. Secondly, I know we don't have unlimited sewer capacity, I'm wondering where do we run out. When I drive around I see jillions of lots going in and we are saying sitting here tonight approving or recommending approval of more. The other one is just something I have observed the last few evenings this spring coming home. This subdivision is directly south of Meridian middle school, every evening coming by there were 2 adult teams out there playing on the back stop fields playing baseball and softball. There are 10 little T-ball teams stacked in one corner, those kids are 6 to 7 years old. Five years from now you can't stack them even 3 or 4 you can't stack them in that one area. I looked at the master park plan and there is one baseball field. I think we are building as we keep approving subdivision after subdivision one big juvenile delinquency problem in the future. And what I watch at Middleton, AI Cavenor whose wife just testified their 7 year old son is playing at Chief Joseph, they have 12 teams stacked together there at once. We are not addressing those problems. Our subdivision has a very small park it is part of our community association we are responsible for it. I don' t see any provision in any of this for parks. And water, right now I don't want to have a fire some portions of the day, because I turn on the home faucet and watch it. I don't want the fire department fitting that fire with that kind of water pressure. And we are saying we are going to run some more in there. The second thing is I thought the little letter that we got the notice on this thing was misleading too. It says 8th and Pine Street, this is really 11th and 8th Street. Thank you for your time. Johnson: Anyone else? Willy Wood, 1080 11th Street West, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wood: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have no wish to go over plowed ground. I just want to reinforce some of the comments that have been made by the other people. I live in Clarinda Fair, I live at the corner of 1 1 th Street West and State Street. I have 2 concerns, one is the impact that the proposed development as I understand will have on the property values in Clarinda Fair. I think that one of the previous speakers, Ms. Cavenor was a bit conservative when she said that the average in square footage in Clarinda Fair was 1750 I see it more closer to 2000 square feet. My home is 1800 square feet on a 9600 square foot corner lot. And I say again to orient you the corner of 11th Street West and State Street. Shearer: Which corner? Wood: The northeast corner. Now we have lived there for 2 years and we have enjoyed every minute of it and we appreciate our neighbors and we appreciate the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 43 atmosphere and the ambiance. My first concern beyond the fact that this proposed subdivision will be somewhat down scaled from Clarinda Fair. And there is bound to be an impact on property values there on Clarinda Fair. It simply as proposed is incompatible with Clarinda Fair. My second concern is the access and traffic problem. There are a lot of children in that subdivision and coming in accessing the proposed development from West Pine down 11th and right or left on West State is just not practical. It doesn't make any sense that you will access a new subdivision through an existing subdivision on residential street. Now we have children who have become use to playing on West State. They ride their bicycles, they are out there with their skateboards, they are out there with their rollerblades and they are out there with their little hot wheels. And there are a lot of children that have to use 11th to get the the middle school. And as far as that goes to the high school. And this is a real concern to me, obviously I don't have any young children playing in the streets out there, but most of them are my friends. Now 11th has almost turned into a mini speedway, people coming off West Pine which is a collector they are accessing Northview area and there are a lot of homes in there. I sat out on my front porch all morning to pick up the Statesman and you have people darn near bumper to bumper 45 miles an hour coming down 11th. And you turn around with the commuter traffic in the evening and it is the same thing. Also there are high school kids coming through there and I don't know why they are coming through there but they are not coming through there slowly. As a matter of fact one time last year I became so concerned that I asked the police department and to check the traffic. They sent a patrolman out one morning and he nailed a couple of them. As a matter of fact he hauled one guy in for driving without privilege. And that was the end of it and it certainly didn't slow that traffic down. And I have a real concern. And I think you gentlemen as family men can well appreciate that. And it just doesn't make any sense. Now the Navarro subdivision that I understand that you have approved which is to the west of us and then there is another smaller 15 unit subdivision to the west of that. West State is going to be pushed through from 11th through the Navarro development and through Piedmont out to Linder and that is going to invite more traffic down there. And this is a residential area not a speedway. I thank you for your time. Shearer: Why do you think that this subdivision is going to be downscaled from Clarinda Fair? Wood: Well, from what I have heard and that is all I have to go by you are going to have 1300 - 1400 square foot homes in there. Shearer: I think the minimum home is requested by Shari is 1400 square feet and I believe that probably your subdivision has the same minimum. • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 44 Hepper: It is lower it is 1300 because the original R-4 designation for Clarinda Fair was 70 foot frontage lot with 1300 square feet within the last year and 1 /2 to 2 years we have changed the R-4 designation to 1400 square feet with 80 foot lots. So this one will actually have a higher minimum than your subdivision. I don't know maybe he is going to build right to minimum and maybe not. Shearer: Not to pick on you personally but this has been brought up by everyone that has been here. I am sitting here looking at a drawing and looking at this drawing I would say that the lots in this subdivision are bigger than lots in your subdivision. Wood: I believe the applicant mentioned 8,000 square foot. Shearer: That is minimum, and in fact your particular lot I would say there is probably there is maybe 2 lots in this subdivision maybe 3 lots that might be as small as yours but I would guess that they are all bigger than yours just looking at it. Wood: Well, my lot is approximately 9600 square feet. It is 120 by 80. Shearer: Well, this one is one of the smaller ones and it is 80 by 121 which is probably the same exact size as yours. Just looking at it in general these lots are comparable size or larger. The minimum house size is comparable or larger, actually larger. I don't know, I have to agree with you I think that road should have gone from State right on through to Pine but I'm not with ACRD. That is all thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Charles Younger, 1080 West Clarinda Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Younger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners I have lived in the subdivision here since it began little over 2 years ago. And I have noticed the amount of traffic that has increased of course everytime they build another house on the lot you are going to get that many more people. Our subdivision itself is not totally filled up yet and if you look around at the average home they are going to have at least 2 to 3 cars in each driveway. If you are looking at 13 lots you are looking at several cars over 26 at least. My concern to is like everyone else in this is the safety for our children. I am recommending to you gentlemen that you cancel this until they do have proper access other than Clarinda State street subdivision access. At 7:30 in the morning I am trying to get out on 11 th street, it is a problem even going into Pine. Then when you come up to Pine street and its car to car, bumper to bumper all the kids waiting to get out the the street you can see it is going to be nothing but a traffic problem right there especially without a stop light. My recommendation is to totally cancel this until • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 45 they can come up with additional proper access either off of Pine or 8th street. I don't know if they can jog it around the church or not. But I really feel it should be denied at this point. Briefly talking with the developer it sounds like he is going to be putting at least 5120,000 for a home which would be some nice homes and I am not denying that but I'm talking about how many people are going to be back in there still accessing 8th street to 11th street to Pine and coming from the other direction. I feel that like I said again I appreciate it if you would consider my recommendation. Johnson: Anyone else? Twyla Franklin, 1125 West State, was sworn by the City Attorney. Franklin: Commissioners, this has been a real experience for me 1 have never been to a public hearing before, I have learned a lot. There is a lot of growth in Meridian and we are all very aware of that. When I moved here approximately 5 years ago, I was aware that it would grow. And we moved on State Street 2 years ago. We did see as Commissioner Hepper pointed out that it was blocked off, because there was a church there. 1 know he addressed Jolynn in a kind of puff little what did you think was going to happen. Maybe there is going to park there, we are growing, could there possibly be a place for another park, another little municipal park. There are all kinds of thoughts that can come to mind, one of them was not having the only access to another subdivision right past my where my little 5 year old rides his big wheel and is a very good friend of Bill's. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I am concerned these trucks are big old trucks and what would happen if there was a fire back there and this big garbage truck was right here and there is one road and 1 don't feel like there is a lot of room there. I feel like the emergency vehicles are really limited in that I look at the picture and it is probably not to size or anything but it looks really congested and limiting. There doesn't seem to be a place for emergency vehicles, I think the Madsen's started out with the right idea pull that thing in off of Pine. I didn't know they had originally done it that way but it doesn't make any sense not to. And I don't know who to talk to at ACRD but I think that needs to be resolved. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Kelly Newell, 1055 West State, was sworn by the City Attorney. Newell: First I want you to know we are not against, I had better say me. I am not against growth, I have lived in Idaho, Boise, Meridian this area my entire life. My concern and 1 know we are beating a dead horse here and maybe we need another avenue and maybe you can help up is again the access. The single access coming • ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 46 right past my house with nowhere else to go and I don't want my kids hit by a car, I also do not think that the stub was there for no reason. But I did truly think it would come off of Pine. I don't understand why ACHD will approve the subdivision on either side off of Pine but not this one. Maybe somebody knows, did the rules change in a month. Because this one over on the other side certainly hasn't gone up very long. Again I am not opposed to the subdivision but I would like a little bit of guarantees from the developer. If it is going to be an extension of Clarinda Fair are these people going to pay the same homeowners dues that we do? Johnson: Well, we might have a problem with semantics here when we talk about extension. From the developers standpoint and our standpoint or designers standpoint extension just means it connects it doesn't mean it is a replica of. I think we have a problem here tonight with extension being a continuation like kind of quality in planning terms that is not what that is necessarily. It means it connects and goes through. Newell: Originally they asked for 1300 square feet they didn't even check around to see what Meridian minimum was at the time. That concerns me a little bit. Johnson: Well, that is partly our fault, because we have changed that minimum recently. We re-wrote our minimum requirements in the last couple of years a couple of times and changed our square footage requirements. We did that recently when we re-did the Comprehensive Plan recently. Newell: Again I am concerned about the access, I am concerned about schools, traffic. I am concerned about where our kids are going to school next year. My husband an I have already moved our kids into private schools because these schools are already overcrowded. I realize that is our prerogative but we do pay good tax, we shouldn't have to do that. It is not the only issue and to tell you the truth my biggest concern in the access and the fact that ACHD says okay to this guy okay to that guy and no to this one. 1 just don't think it is laid out very well. Johnson: Did you go down to meet with ACRD with the other people? Newell: I didn't Johnson: Who went down there, did that access come up? What I was interested in is what they actually told you, their reason to not allow that access there. Because I know they want to limit their number of cuts onto a collector street like that, but what did they tell you? • ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 47 Alan Cavenor, 1048 WEST State, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cavenor: They basically didn't have anything to say except it was within the confounds of the law and it was an acceptable way. They did say that they did think that there was enough accesses in and out of Pine Street already. And of course my feeling to that is well it must mean there is enough development on Pine Street already. Unfortunately they didn't agree with me. I would ask, in tact I hope you don't think I am naive but I would ask for responsible development for this City and I don't think that is an unreasonable naive request. If you have any more questions. Johnson: I don't think it is an unreasonable request but is there anything you see in this development that you think is unreasonable? Cavenor: Well, we could beat a dead horse to death I think the schools are overcrowded, I think there is in adequate recreation. Johnson: The schools being overcrowded are not going to be the result of 15 more lots being developed. Cavenor: Where does it stop, where do you draw the line? Johnson: In terms of the housing, in terms of the size, there doesn't seem to be that big of a distinction that people are trying to make. I think they have tried to point that out to you, the commissioners have to you, about the square footage size, the size of the lots and all of that sort of thing. Cavenor: And I agree with that, but I am the one that turns on the shower and sees that there is no water. I am the one that sees my son playing T-ball and there are no fields. I am the one that lives here and I would just ask for responsible development. I am not opposed to development I just want it responsible. I don't want to see the fire engine pull up and hook up to the fire hydrant and no water come out. Especially if it is my house that is on fire. Johnson: Did you have that same concern 2 years ago when this was a new subdivision when you moved in? Cavenor: Well, I think it was my concern 15 years ago when I moved to Meridian. Johnson: I'm talking about Clarinda Fair as an example which is a brand new subdivision in terms of being new .t is 2 years old. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 48 Cavenor: Absolutely, it was my concern, it was 15 years ago, it was 2 years ago, it is now and 1 bet it will be in 15 more years. And I hope that there is responsible development and I will still want to live here in 15 years and I hope my kids will want to live here. And I think that is our job as the public and that is your job and I hope that we can come to terms and I hope that it is acceptable. Like I said I am not opposed to development 1 just want it responsible. And I don't think this is a responsible development and the number 1 reason is because of the access. The rest of the things are public knowledge we see it the school board people talk about, the water people talk about it, the sewer people talk about we all know it. I don't have to tell you, you are as well aware of it as I am. But this particular one is in my backyard and it is the access that concerns me more than anything. Just like the rest of my neighbors. And the Highway District doesn't seem to be responsible and I asked them to so I am asking you the same thing. If the Highway District won't be I am asking you to reject it until they can come up with a feasible alternative and I think it is there. I think there is a real feasible alternative and it is called Pine Street and that is why I am here. If there is nothing else thank you very much. Johnson: Wayne Forrey, would you like to comment for these people just an overview of sewer and water in Meridian, the capacities. Shearer: Don't we have water pressure there now with the new well? Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 1'll have to recall some figures from memory. I did read a report at the beginning of this meeting about sewer capacity. The City of Meridian currently has just under 3 million gallons per day treatment capacity. And I believe the flow is approaching about 85°h of that capacity. But there are a couple of components to treatment the City has a hydraulic limitation right now not an organic limitation. In other words the City could probably treat up to 5 million gallons per day of organic load but the amount of water that would be with that would overload the current system. The City is actively upgrading the Waste Treatment plant. Gary Smith and others the City Engineer are working with EPA to obtain permission to increase the capacity of the plant upward to about 5 million gallons. And that is an active ongoing process of the City of Meridian. Water system is much the same. The City is always in a situation it appears where wells can't be developed fast enough but they are coming on line. And the City has completed a major water system master plan. The City has identified a location for new wells, the type of storage, the type of generators necessary to keep the water pressure in accordance with a standard in the community. There probably are neighborhoods where there are low pressure areas at certain times of the day and the • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 49 City tries to manage that water system to move that water around as needed. With pressure valves, reducing valves, booster stations that type of thing. So I guess the bottom line Mr. Chairman is Meridian may not have the most perfect water system or sewer system at this very moment but the City is always committed to upgrading and making sure when any of you turn on your faucet that there is enough water there. And that if your home is on fire that when the fire truck pulls up there will be enough water to fight a fire. The City has an insurance obligation and a legal obligation to make sure those minimum standards are met. It is an ongoing budgeting process. The City will spend several million dollars alone on just water and sewer improvements. 1 hope that helps. Johnson: Thank you (Inaudible) Forrey: I'm not sure I understood the question. (Inaudible) Forrey: I'm not sure I would know, compare 1990 with 1994. Johnson: That is something we can make available we just don't have. The sewer department has that and the water department. Anyone else from the public like to come forward on this application? Cavenor: 1 guess it is just a summary Chairman because as you mentioned the overall growth in Meridian you have all those issues to deal with as far. There is just 2 things, of course like we said the homes being we're hoping comparable to ours. I mean it is not only the size it is that most of them have 3 car garages and the nice mailboxes like we stated, street lamps. It is a highly developed subdivision. That is one issue, the second one is really the one that concerns most of us or at least concerns me the most and that is the access through our subdivision. The only access, I think that is the key here, the only access I would like to propose that this development is put on hold until they gain access through Pine or some alternative or at least there is a study done on the impact of the increased traffic through that area. I don't know if that means we are going to have to put signals up, signs or what that would mean. 1 can't understand why they cannot gain access to Pine, does that make sense Mr. Chairman? I'm just not sure, to me that seems unfair. Johnson: I think that is answered early on by Mr. Hepper when he said that the City Staff, both comments from the engineering department and the planning administrator . ~ -~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 50 would like to see access off of Pine. Personally the streets are not Meridian's they are ACHD's streets. And they make that decision where those cuts are going to be. Cavenor: So, I guess the City of Meridian, the people of Meridian do we have no control over what access can be granted there? So, then the only thing we can do if we see their granting of it is unreasonable might have to be a park for the future. Johnson: Well there are other alternatives, (inaudible) but they do have total control over that. Cavenor: Would you agree with access through Clarinda Fair subdivision as being the only access to that? Johnson: We work here from a relative and comparative standpoint and I don't think that too many of these commissioners would consider 15 lots being developed a major item. Not when we are looking at subdivisions that are 200 and some lots. You are lucky what you have is a fill in almost there. Once that is done you won't have to worry about anything else. For a lot of these subdivisions being developed there are still totally surrounded by land. So you have a 200 lot thing with another 600 to 800 potential now those are the major problems that we see. Everything is relative, and I understand where you are coming from because it is in your backyard. That is something we often hear. When you are talking in terms of traffic you are talking to people that lived in Los Angeles and dealt with those problems there too, so it is a relative thing. We all have kids, everybody has kids and we all have the same concerns about the safety of your kids as we do. Cavenor: No, and I realize that and I am from Long Beach actually so I realize the kind of traffic problems you can have but I guess 1 am just hoping the Commission will remember tonight to give us some direction on what we can do to help grant some other kind of access or at least consider that is a major ordeal. That is all I have. Johnson: I think you guys have made your points well. Is there anyone else? Newell: Can we appeal to ACHD before you give a full ruling on this? Can we appeal the access before you deal with this one? Johnson: I don't think it is an appeal process. Crookston: I have no idea, I don't deal with ACHD matters. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 51 Newell: Can we ask that we get the 15 day appeal period before you approve this. Shearer: Before we approve the plat yes because we won't approve it until next month anyway. Johnson: What action we take tonight, our primary function tonight for you that don't' know is to gather the testimony tonight. We are not here to give you all the answers because we don't have all the answers that is not our function. You asked about the sewer capacity, we don't have those answers we are all volunteer people, we don't work for the City, but we have access to that information. Our main goal is to gather testimony and see where the objections are so that when it goes to City Council after we prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law which is nothing in terms of addressing it in legalities for our ordinances and zoning laws that are employed. It goes onto City Council, they are already prepared for what the problems are with the application because you people have come forward and told us what the problems are. So, when it gets to the City Council level there is no reason for those people not to be totally prepared for the fact that you object to it and why. And that is what we are trying to accomplish here tonight. And we may draw that out from you in different ways and huffy ways and whatever we might do, but that is our main goal here. Anybody else have anything, Beveraly haven't heard from you tonight. Beveraly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Donahue: Since you brought this up Jim I thought I would also bring up the point considering that they have to go through a whole subdivision in order to build these homes that means cement trucks are going to go through, all the framing all that is going to end going through a residential thing. Are there no City ordinances regarding residential of all these high traffic trucks going through? Shearer: ACRD has control. Donahue: But it is zoned residential is there no City ordinances because they are in the City? Alidjani: Concrete truck are not considered commercial. Donahue: But how about the lumber and the big heavy duty bulldozers? Alidjani: Everyone of them that is part of the doing business, that is the equipment you need to do business and doing business is building houses. Anything goes with that it is not considered a truck or commercial truck. ~ ! Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 52 Donahue: Okay where mu subdivision is going in at my neighborhood on North Locust Grove I mean they stop right in the middle of the road. They park the trucks, people have to go around at 50 mile an hour and hope they don't hit head on and there are no ordinances, they can just park in the middle of the street. Shearer: How many lots exit past your house? Donahue: We don't have lots yet. There are no city ordinances to protect us in the City? Alidjani: Considering what you are saying, every Wednesday at 9:00 sometimes or 6:00 sometimes or 2:00 in the afternoon there is 40 foot semi right by the sidewalk they have 2 restaurants on each side they have to deliver. That is part of cost of business and its uncomfortable. They are not being inconsiderate they also have a job to do and a family to feed. You have to look at it the other way. We had a cop stop my garbage truck on Meridian Road they said no truck goes by, I said fine we go on strike you guys have trash alt over the City. That is how it works we have to get through the town and we have to go through the alleys and streets and do the job. Donahue: But there is no back alley that you could access to run those trucks until the final phase. Alidjani: If you would consider the original owner of the original Clarinda Fair together you couldn't by that 5 acre or 10 acre or whatever it is and add on to it and nobody would no the difference today. It could have been part of it, it didn't happen unfortunately and some of you are unhappy. Johnson: I know we are getting past 10:30 because I am losing control, is there anybody else? I am not good past 10:30 I just wrote him a note no more meetings past 10:30. Okay, I don't see anyone so I will close the public hearing. Shearer: These people don't know how lucky they are, they only have 20 lots exiting when this is in exiting past them. Johnson: I agree, I would like to see more Clarinda Fair's I really like this. Shearer: In a lot of subdivisions there are 3 times 4 times that exiting past. Johnson: What would you like to do here before the night leaves us. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 53 Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project once the ACHD findings get here. Crookston: Findings are not required Shearer: Oh, this is already zoned isn't it. WeII, I move we approve the preliminary plat once, well I hate to do that without ACHD's recommendations. Johnson: Do you have a motion, do you want to withdraw it or re-word it? Shearer: I want to see ACHD's stuff before we approve it. Crookston: Then you can table it. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we table this item until we receive and have had an opportunity to review ACHD comments on access. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table this item until we get comments fro ACHD to the next regularly scheduled meeting June 14. (End of Tape) Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION BY ROBERT GLENN AND TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing would the applicant or his representative please come forward and address the Commission. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise was sworn by the Applicant. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Johnson: Just a minute, we are not going to be able to pick you up, it will get garbled and our transcriber will get mad at us, she has to transcribe every word. Hutchinson: This is an application by Robert Glenn, we are seeking approval of a residential subdivision. The annexation request and the zoning for this parcel, the findings were recommended earlier for this parcel. We are located on the north side of Cherry Lane we are about a 1 /4 mile east of the intersection of Cherry Lane and Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 54 Ten Mile Road. This is an interesting parcel as I indicated at our last public hearing when we went over the annexation of this particular parcel. The parcel is 414 feet wide maybe just a hair over 414 feet wide. It is over 2600 feet deep, it created all kinds of interesting problems in itself in that not only is it long and narrow but it had approximately 7 street that stub into it from existing subdivision. It also had an irrigation ditch which runs adjacent to Cherry Lane and then down the west side of the property to about this point then the irrigation ditch takes off to the west. Then there is a drain ditch that runs the rest of the parcel length and then across the north. It is our intent to the or pipe these irrigation or drainage entities as required by the Meridian zoning ordinance. If that easement we have talked to the farmers union irrigation district about their requirements for access into a maintenance easement and we are providing a lot which will be dedicated which will provide access to the easements on the west side of this particular development. The site is surrounded by basically similar residential development. We have Sunburst subdivision to the west and Sunny Brook Farms which extends along the entire east parcel, north of the parcel there are new subdivisions going in. I believe Saddleview is one of the subdivisions that is going in there and there is another one there I don't recall the name right off. But this area is developing in a residential manor. This site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as residential development site where up to 4 units per acre are permitted. With this proposal we have a density that runs out about 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This parcel has sat vacant probably for a number of reasons, not the least being the configuration but also because of the depth of the sewer which is in the area of this particular development. Because it is a shallow sewer that is going to lead into the development we are going to have to provide lift station to sewer this particular project. That lift station will be located adjacent to Chateau Drive on this lot here which is Lot 3 of Block 7. That will be a common lot where the lift station will be located. The adjacent lot 18 of Block 5 is the landscape lot because it is adjacent to a collector street which is going through that particular, Chateau is classified as a collector and will be constructed. When this plat was drawn we drew it at a 66 foot cross section. The highway district advised us the cross section only needs to be 60 feet. So, we will reduce that down to 60 feet and increase the lots which are adjacent by the 3 feet. Also there will be a small landscape island at this knuckle right here. So that the access onto Chateau is at least interrupted and not direct access onto Chateau. We have since this was originally proposed asked Ada County Highway District for access directly onto Cherry Lane and that was after the comments which were received during the annexation and public hearing. The neighbors in Sunburst in particular were concerned about traffic coming through their existing subdivision and being forced out of our subdivision into the adjoining subdivision. The Highway District is at least the Highway district staff is reluctant to permit an access onto Cherry Lane in fact we have requested and are making a presentation before the Highway District tomorrow Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 55 night at 7:00 P.M. and if we can get a recommendation from this body that connection to Cherry Lane be provided that will aid us in our case to ask for at least an entry for this particular subdivision. To give a little bit of background on why their staff is feeling that it is not appropriate that the access go onto Cherry Lane. First of all there is Chateau which is a collector street which cuts through this particular parcel and that connects with Todd Street and Sunnybrook Farms Subdivision, Todd is a collector street. And they feel that with the connection of Janelle Street which is this street right here that this traffic will come over at the first street to intersect with Todd Street that traffic will extend down from Cherry Lane to Todd. Again that would be the same for the other streets which intersect including Gemstone to the East. This yet to be named street, Janelle and Chateau it is there belief that, they calculate there to be fewer than 450 trips a day which would come out of the south half of this particular development and be forced through these other developments. However, we want to be a good neighbor to those existing subdivisions and try to be as much like them in the lot size and development style at those existing developments. And we feet that providing a direct access onto Cherry Lane we can not be an intrusive neighbor. The lots in this proposal are 8,000 square feet. I was noticing in staff's comments that it states that the lots must be 8,000 square feet exclusive of all easements. When we go to the ordinance and look at the lots size there is a foot note in the table that has the minimum yard setbacks and lot sizes cover building heights and such. Footnote #8 says the minimum lot size shall be determined exclusive of land that is used for streets, highways, alleys, roads, rights of way, irrigation easements unless the water is conveyed by pipe or fife and included at part of utilities that generally run along the lot line. Our intention is to pipe this and those pipes will be located within the area that is generally used for utility easements. Also, the lots, so the lots are 8,000 square feet but it does include that utility easement however they will still have use of the lots, the irrigation company simply wants to have access into that area. They will still be able to fence the lots back across the easement they have requested removable fence sections along their easements for access and we are working with them to ensure the irrigation requirements are being met. Again we will service this with Meridian water and we will connect to Meridian sewer. The proposal was designed to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan of the City of Meridian and to comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We believe that this is a quality project and will fit in with the neighborhood. All of the street frontages I believe there is a question raised by whether or not the street frontages on some of the culdesacs were 40 feet on the chords. That was one of the requirements in our re-design if you look at the original proposal I think the chords were a little small so they have been redesigned that the chords at least on a computer measurement do meet the minimum and it will be constructed to those standards in the zoning ordinance. With that I will conclude, are there any questions from the Commission at this time? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 56 Shearer: Yes, I have a couple, Chateau Drive, do you know in Sunnybrook Farms that Chateau Drive it has lots facing onto doesn't it, the collector? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shearer, I believe there are lots in Sunnybrook that do front directly onto Chateau Drive. Shearer: Todd is the same isn't it? Hutchinson: I believe there are, there are lots that front directly onto that. However, we are not proposing any direct lot access onto any collector street. Rountree: What do you plan to do in the front on Cherry Lane? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, Cherry Lane is scheduled for reconstruction in that particular area. We are going to work with the Highway District as far as meeting whatever they are attempting to do. 1 believe their right of way will extend back at least to our property line and we are going to work with them. We are not quite sure how they are going to accomplish the construction in that area. But I believe it will probably match something similar to what is already in Sunburst and Sunnybrook. I know Sunburst has sidewalk which comes up about right to the edge of the property line and I believe that canal has been piped at that point. We will work with them to make sure it is a similar type. As far as an entryway, I don't know if we have really addressed any specific dressing on the entryway. Rountree: In terms of landscaping, berms, common lots? Hutchinson: I don't believe we have proposed any at this time, part of it is to see what the Highway District is going to require and whether or not they are going to allow us access. If they allow access then we will be able to address that an come up with something to do to fit in with the existing neighbors. Rountree: I assume that without access you propose some kind of a buffer there. Hutchinson: Yes, we will have to do something with the Highway district regardless of access by Sunburst. We are 45 feet back from the centerline at Cherry Lane and it would accommodate the right of way in there and still allow for some type of dressing along the road right of way. Shearer: I think you should point out to ACRD that Chateau Drive and Todd are the old connectors that had lots fronting on them. We don't do that anymore. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 58 same size if not a little larger. But I'm not quite sure what she means by buffering the residential use. And then we would ask that you review this particular project on its merits that it is a quality project and will fit in with the existing development as we stated it is designed to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance of the City of Meridian. Johnson: Any other questions, you may want to come back if there are points you want to make in rebuttal at the end. This is a public hearing. Sue Sheehan, 2541 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sheehan: Well my concern is that, I live in Sunnybrook Farms and we all know where that is now. He didn't really address the park issue and that is a real concern to us. Here is what I feel, I would like to ask you to please not pass this through until we can convince Ada County Highway District that they have to have their own entrance, because if they're going to use our entrance they should pay our same homeowners association dues because they are driving right through our subdivision and right in front of our park. Their kids are coming over and playing in the park the same as ours. We spent 55,000 last year to put in a simple little swingset and a climbing tool, we spent another 52,500 on a fence to go around there and if everybody is going to start moving in and using our park. He is building where he has better access to our park than we do and 1 don't think it is right. And like you said, our homes my home faces Chateau I am looking right out at Chateau I am looking right at the park. He is inconveniencing me more to drive in front of my home than he is to drive down Chateau where he wants to build because those homes aren't facing. He is inconveniencing the people coming in on Todd Street more than his own. I don't think you should allow his to use 2 other subdivisions to get where they live. They should have their own access. Ada County Highway District can have their arm twisted, they can change their mind. I worked with them all last year, I am the one who worked on the project to have the frontage of our subdivision redone because when they had torn it all up when they did some work there. And so we had sidewalks curbs and gutter the whole 9 yards and they told us then that it would continue on but they would not do it until they forced to. Well, I say force them if they want to put a subdivision in there they have to do it right. They shouldn't do it by inconveniencing alot of other people. I was born and raised in this land, so were my parents, my grandparents, my ancestors go way back we are not moving in from California or anywhere else, we have been here all our lives gang. And the thing is if they want to build these and want to put them in I am not opposed to growth I say everybody has to have a place to live. We do have a nice town here, Boise and Meridian. We have a nice State but make them do it right, don't let them come in our subdivision to get to their homes. Come in their own subdivision to get Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 59 to their own home. Thank you very much. Johnson: Does anyone have any questions? Anyone else? Tina Mores, 2511 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mores: Okay I am not going to beat this thing dead since it is 5 minutes to midnight I think we are going to have to approach this a different way. What I am going to ask of the representative for Robert Glenn is a proposition. We are tired of being around the bush and everything and complaining about paying for the subdivision and everything else. What I would like to do is see if they would match the acreage we have in our park with some of their own acreage and we would be willing to donate the total of it together to the City of Meridian for a city park. That would give us 7 plus acres of a city park. I don't know if he wants to approach Mr. Glenn about that but that is my proposition as the Homeowners association president that I would be looking into. Also, the sidewalks like Mrs. Sheehan has said we have a buffer account that was set aside when our subdivision was okay to be built. And we did use part of that to update the front of our subdivision, but we still have some left. We have ended the frontage short because we were told that they were going to continue once that land was plotted out or whatever. To continue that to meet the other subdivision we have nothing against the subdivision coming in there but as for the park and the entryway which I was glad to hear that they are going to fight for getting the entryway off Cherry Lane. I approve and very appreciative for there concern towards this too. I built on Chateau because I face Chateau also almost 9 years and I did not know at what time Chateau and Todd had become collector streets. I wasn't aware of this until tonight when it came out. I don't feel just because Chateau and Todd are collector streets that we should be taking all the brunt of the traffic and everything. Because when I moved and built there it wasn't a collector street. And that is all I have to say thank you. Bob Nichols, 2692 Rebecca, was sworn by the City Attorney. Nichols: Two things it has already been brought up before. The first is the access to Cherry Lane, I think it is. If we don't get the access I don't think we need a subdivision. He said something about 450 cars, I live it would be my address today is Rebecca but it would change to Gemstone, I don't think we have 45 cars today. So we are talking 100 times easy and I am not exaggerating. We are putting a lot of pressure on a very small street, children the whole 9 yards. I would appreciate the access to Cherry Lane and your recommendation for that. I be-ong to a homeowners association which owns and maintains a park directly adjacent to this parcel. They are getting something for nothing. 1 don't want to give them something for nothing. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 60 I would like some concessions. We need to have some better input and more input on the park. Thank you. Kenneth Tetrault, 2830 West Gemstone, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tetrault: The main reason that I am up here speaking tonight is I would like to ask the Meridian City Council recommend to the Ada County Highway District that this development be given access off of Cherry Lane. I know that Ada County Highway District does make the decision but I think that if the Meridian City Council were to inform the Ada County Highway District that that is what the people of Meridian want and the people in that area want I think that they would take that into consideration along with a number of people from the subdivision who are likely to be at their meeting tomorrow night. And that is all I have. Johnson: Thank you Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the Attorney. Donahue: As stated by the developer he promised to be a good neighbor or try to. So, if he want to be a good neighbor and he is a developer in Meridian he knows we need parks. I would like to go on record tonight stating that it would be nice if he could donate a 3 or 4 acre park at the norther end so that those 87 homes will have their own park to play in since there are no parks available. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Forrey did you have anything to say on this application or did you just come to listen tonight? Just listening, anyone else? Ron Shaw, 2618 Rebecca, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shaw: I would just like to say that looking at Mr. Glenn's plat and looking at my own plat from my homeowners association and quickly counting the lots it appears to me that the automobile traffic from Mr. Glenn's subdivision will far exceed the traffic that we generate in Sunnybrook Farms going up and down that street. That is a residential street, all the houses front on the street. It wasn't designed and built as a connector it wasn't even hardly designed and built as a street. It is just more like paved dirt. We don't need that traffic. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else. We didn't get into water tonight. Don you didn't have anything to say? (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 61 Johnson: I guess t won't try to be friendly to Don anymore. Seeing no one else wishing to testify we will have a rebuttal. Hutchinson: First of all with regard to the park issue, in talking with Mr. Chandler the park is fenced on 3 sides and we are willing to offer to put up a sign which designates the park as private property of the Sunnybrook homeowners association. Then with regard to, well still on the parks and dedication of lands for park use, with the cost of land and the cost of infrastructure and improvements the number of lots as determined, that determines the number of lots that when you factor in the cost and the improvements. If there is some way to reduce the infrastructure cost because the land costs are pretty much a fixed cost then exclusion of lots for development from development for park sites or other uses becomes a possibility. However, because we have, we are required by ordinance to fence to the those ditches which are adjacent to the property that has forced up the cost of this particular development to the point where losing lots even if it were to be 3 to 4 acres which is a considerable amount of ground on that north end without having some way to off set those costs and lowering the infrastructure costs it becomes infeesbile it is not an economic possibility as far as the development of this particular project. There is the issue of the traffic in the area, they talked about the cars going past the existing houses. Well these are public streets there are public funds which are expended for their maintenance. Again we are trying to get the Ada County Highway District to agree to our own entrance onto Cherry Lane so that hopefully it will alleviate some of that traffic which will be passed through. It is the highway district's staff position that those collector streets are there for a purpose and that they are trying to force the use of those collector streets. However, again, we have asked that this body in your recommendation to the City Council that you ask the Ada County Highway District that we be allowed and access onto Cherry Lane. With that are there any questions that I might answer? Johnson: Does anyone have any questions? Apparently not. Sheehan: Okay, he said the park was fenced in on 3 sides and that is wrong. The park is fenced what we paid for it goes up the east side and across the north end. On the whole west side which is where he is building where his little subdivision is the whole west side has a little rickety fence that a farmer put in a hundred years ago that has to come down as they build. So that is something new too, where are they going to put that we need to know that. That isn't a stable fence it is only maybe 4 feet high and it is barbed wire. So the park isn't fenced in all the way around and I didn't think of that until he said that. That is a good point they are going to have to do something on the whole west side and you can put up all the signs in the world that say private. My home is private and it doesn't stop the kids from stealing my Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 62 Christmas lights and kicking my trash cans and destroying my mailbox. Everything is private and everybody owns land and all land is private. But anyway that is a new issue on the fence and we do need to know what they plan to do on the whole westside of the park. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: Gary Smith has something he would like to say. Smith: I had 19 items on this for review and there are a lot of things that aren't shown on this plat that are required to be shown. Tonight was the first time that I heard of the proposal to sewer this with a lift station. My attitude toward lift stations is not very good. I haven't heard from the developers engineer on any of these items. I can read through them, I think you have the list of them. Johnson: We do Smith: It was an incomplete submittal as tar as I am concerned. I would recommend that this be tabled until these issues are addressed and resubmitted. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thanks, Gary's memorandum which is dated May 6, 1994 concludes with item #20 that there are a lot of deficiencies in this submittal and he has a lot of questions that apparently remain unanswered at this point. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we table this item for action until the applicant has an opportunity to review and incorporate the conditions of the annexation. The issues and concerns raised by the City Engineer and the City Planning Staff, and the issues raised this evening until our next regularly scheduled meeting June 14. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table this until the items so stated are addressed to our Engineering Department and our Planning Administrator, atl those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend to the Ada County Highway District that they allow an entrance onto Cherry Lane and that we have Will i • Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 63 Berg write a letter in the morning so stating and have one of these young ladies come by and deliver it at the meeting tomorrow night, I'm sure they would be happy to do that. Johnson: I think that is a violation of postal standards, I know you can't deliver your own mail. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? I have a question, will Will Berg be the appropriate person to write that letter? Or should we have your name on it Wayne? Crookston: I think it is more appropriate to have Will's or Shari's. Johnson: I was thinking more in terms of Shari's, all opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will make that recommendation to ACHD then. Does anybody else have anything they would like to bring up this evening? Rountree: If it was earlier I would. Johnson: How long is it going to take? Rountree: Just some thoughts. It has been a long time since we have had an update on inventory of lots by zoning. We've had an horrendous amount of R-8, R-4. Johnson: You mean what is in our bank? Rountree: Yes, most of the conditions coming from the City Engineer state that approve with the condition that the hydraulic report water and so forth comes back favorable. We are in a situation where we are kind of shaky there I would like to find out what is going on there. I would also like to find out what kind of reserve capacity we really do have in the sewer treatment facility so we don't sell to homeowners what we need to commercial and industrial development. So we don't come up short there when all of the sudden we do get some good development coming in when we get an increased tax base. Johnson: So we need an assessment similar to what we did back in prior to Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 64 September when we called the moratorium. Rountree: I am getting real uncomfortable talking about Johnson: Our last update was done about August wasn't it. I mean in terms of numbers we had a capacity remaining etc. Rountree: I would also (inaudible) what does the City feel that we need to protect and reserve to accommodate industrial and commercial growth. I don't think we should be dipping into that. Johnson: So that we can still have that tax base available if we got opportunities. Rountree: Anyway those are my thoughts, staff is that a request that is monumental I know you are overworked. Shearer: Gary doesn't have anything to do. Alidjani: I'll make a motion Charlie writes a letter to Will and Will will ask Gary. Johnson: Wayne knows this, what we should have it is already in the computer banks someplace, but we are so far behind we haven't done that, and who's fault is that, point fingers. Rountree: But they will point back at you when you do that. Johnson: That is the type of information that we need somewhere. I know Gary does it manually. Smith: I was just going to say Commissioner that Wayne Forrey is working right now to put some figures together right now based on the water and sewer rate structure that he did for as to where we are in the development game. I think basically an inventory of lots is part of that analysis that he is doing. And this will give us a better idea of where we are in the water department. I have a pretty good idea where we are in the sewer department. Rountree: And it is not good. Smith: As far as hydraulic loading on the plant, on our EPA permit discharge requirement for hydraulic discharge we are going to fast approaching that limitation this summer based on the flow we had last summer and the growth we have Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 65 experienced since that time. We are adding a 1000 houses a year in this town, we are going to have that flow to put our plant at discharge limitation this summer. Johnson: Have you started that? Forrey: That is what I was doing tonight. I am doing a lot of that to get ready for Tuesdays Council meeting. Smith: I don't think that the water, the drinking water situation. 1 think one thing that we are having a problem with right now is we are in the process of getting our telemetry system updated. And we don't have our big well on line yet. So, we are operating without that well right now. And that might be one reason that people are experiencing lowered water pressure in the town depending on where they are living. But when we get that big well fired up and on line that problem 1 think will be taken care of. Plus we are going to be in the process of regenerating or rejuvenating well no. 12 so it will be a producer instead of what it is doing right now. Again it is more of what Wayne is studying. Rountree: What kind of time line are we looking at for some info? Smith: Next Tuesday night at the Council meeting. Johnson: (Inaudible) was that part of your study? Forrey: Yes Johnson: Theoretically, if we developed every single lot that we now have we will be out of water by August 22nd. Forrey: Theoretically yes Crookston: That is my parents anniversary. Shearer: We have a problem with not enough too much problem. Is our problem with the sewer plant is that a permit problem, it is a paper problem. Smith: Yes, we have put a letter together with the help of CH2M Hill to EPA requesting that the flow limitation be deleted from our permit requirements. Because they are issuing permits now that are not quantity restricted they are quality restricted only. So, you have a restriction as to how much suspended solids you can discharge and so forth and not the quantity of water you can discharge. If it is treated you can Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 66 discharge it. CH2M Hill says we have a pretty good shot at having that restriction removed from that requirement. Johnson: This is a little different subject but you made the comment, is our position as a City that we view lift stations as temporary that is why we don't like them. We don't see them as solutions for the long term right. Smith: They are solutions in a very limited application that is their size. If we are looking at a regional type lift station then it is a solution to the problem. If we are looking at a lift station such as this, we don't have a lift station yet but there is one planned out on Blackcat Road near Brighton Corporation Development in the second phase of the golf course. That will be a regional lift station, that thing will sewer will pump sewage to the treatment plant that will be generated on the south side of the Interstate. That has a 33 inch diameter trunk to it. (End of Tape) I am being facetious, but it is a big lift station. These little ones, individual lift stations, all they are is a maintenance nightmare. They are 365 day a year maintenance problem for the City. Crookston: Well on Leap year you have a day off. Smith: But the development community throws these lift stations around like they were a landscaped berm or something tike that and they are not. They are long term and I don't know the meaning of the word temporary. Johnson: (Inaudible) Smith: Yes Johnson: So you take it on whether you want it or not. Rountree: Or you deny the development Johnson: (Inaudible but then there is the park it is a nice idea but do we want to a real small park, it is a maintenance headache. Smith: That is exactly right, on a small park like that the only way to maintain is to load up your mower and transport it out there. You can't leave anything out there because it is unprotected and that is evident on NW 8th Street park. There are 2.3 acres or so and the kids go out there and leave the tops out of the sprinkler heads to where we replace a number of those every year. They bust up the park benches, rip the limbs off the trees. So, they are maintenance problems. Anyway that is where Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 57 Hutchinson: Staff has been pretty adamant about not allowing the connection onto Cherry Lane however in a preliminary meeting with the district last Wednesday in their comments they are a little concerned about being intrusive on the neighbors and so I think we may have a pretty good shot at it. Rountree: When is that meeting scheduled again? Hutchinson: Tomorrow night at 7 P.M. Rountree: At ACHD? Hutchinson: At ACHD, Ada County Highway District is 318 East 37th Street in Garden City. Johnson: Any other questions? Have you had an opportunity to review the comments by Shari Stiles? Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, I got a copy of those tonight. With regard to the park area on the northern end. Again that was an item of discussion when we did the annexation. In this particular area I understand there is a proposed regional park not too far from this particular area. We understand the concerns of the neighbors that is a private neighborhood park and it is part of the homeowners association. And we are not sure that, we don't know quite how to deal with that particular area. Because this is a preliminary plat the utilities will be planned as we get further into the phases so we know exactly how the lots are going to layout and that is going to depend on what happens as far as the street connections. The culdesacs, again, we've got the 40 foot chord I think we have addressed that in the plat design. Lot 18 -Block 5 is a landscape lot along the easement of a collector street, Lot 3 -Block 7 is a location for the lift station. We will submit restrictive covenants, the lots are at least 8,000 square feet. We believe that the sub note in the development standards of the zoning ordinance permit because we are tiling that ditch and the drainage that our lots meet the minimum requirements. The 1400 square feet will be noted on the plat. Again note #8 we are trying to get worked out with the Highway district concerning parcel access onto Cherry Lane. We are working with the Irrigation district to ensure that their needs are being met. In talking to the developer and Mr. Chandler who is here tonight who happens to live in Meridian so he is one developer who is living in town here. He states that mature trees are an asset to the particular lot and aid as a selling point of the lot so we will make that reattempt to protect the mature trees that are existing along that side. I'm not sure what buffering adjacent residential uses what staff is referring to there. We have a residential use immediately abutting a residential use. I believe these are compatible they are very similar in nature. The lots are the Meridian Planning & Zoning May 10, 1994 Page 67 we are in the sewer and water. Johnson: I think that is a really good point that you made there Charlie. Kind of late in coming I would have anticipated it a lot earlier than this. Rountree: Thanks Jim, I appreciate the confidence. Rountree: I move w adjourn Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:33 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) `~ ~,~ JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ('/4arlie /Pr~~n~/vc~ aa'tihj C~fcuifn-xar.- WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CIT CL RK u RECEIVED CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning and Zoning Meridian City Hall Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Conditional Use Application MAY 1 0 1984 CITY OF MERIDIAN Stanley D. Smith, Applicant Property: East 2nd Street and Pine Street (Old Meridian Medical) Scheduled hearing date - May 10, 1994 at 7:30 P.M. The undersigned applicant, does herewith cancel and withdraw the above referenced application. On Monday, May 9, 1994 at about noon Dr. Drennan elected to force forfeiture of my Earnest Money before the hearing scheduled for May 10th can be held to determine permitted uses for the property. This application is the exclusive property of Stanley D. Smith and all fees and plans were submitted and paid by me. You are herewith notified that this application and any funds submitted therewith, ARE NOT to be assigned or used by any other party, including the vested property owner, without my written approval. Please attach this notice to the original application and include this Notice of Cancellation in the official minutes of the meeting May I0. Thank you for your assistance. My sincerest thanks to ail members of the Planing and Zoning Committee and Employees of the City of Meridian for there time and cooperation. I am sorry I was not allowed the opportunity to await your approval and develop this property to improve Meridian Old Town and increase the tax base. .Should there for any reason be a partial refund of any sums paid, please remit it to the address set forth below. Dated)this IOth day of May, 1994 at 12:15 P.M. Stanley Smith, Applicant ~ P. O. Box 7065 Boise ID 83707 Nand delivered to Meridian City Hall, Tuesday, May 10, 1994 Received by Meridian City Hall this 10th day of May, 1994 at~ l~ P.M. By. ~~~~"2 ' • • SUPEflINTEN DENT OF SCHOOLS Bob L Haley DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OR EXCEL! Dan Mabe, FinanceBAdministratlon ,~~~ ~ DIRECTORS `~Z m Sheryl Belknap, Elementary Jim Carberry, Secontlary Christine Donnell, Personnel Doug Rutan, Special Services \~ - JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2 911 MERI DIAN STREET MERIDIAN,IDAH083642 • PHONE~208)888-6701 May 10, 1994 RECEI~JEI~ City of Meridian MAY ~ O 1994 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho x3642 CI'I`}f OF hIERIDIATd RE: Preston's Aspen Grove Subdivision Dear Councilmen: I have reviewed the application for Preston's Aspen Grove find that it includes approximately 131 homes at the median value of $100,000. We also find that this subdivision is located in census tract 103.12 and in the attendance zone for Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School and Meridian High School. Using the above information we can predict that these homes, when completed, will house 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged children, and 29 senior high aged students. At the present time Chief Joseph Elementary is at 1178 of capacity, Meridian Middle School is at 1308 of capacity and Meridian High School is at T168 of capacity. , 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 is not opposed to growth in our district, however this subdivision will cause increased over- crowding in all three schools. 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. Even if we were willing to use portable classrooms for a year or two, this project would require two classrooms at the elementary level, two classrooms at the middle school level and one classroom at the high school level. To build portables ready to occupy by students will cost approximately. $40,000 each. As you can see the total for six portables would be $200,000. We would welcome a meeting with you to find ways of mitigating the projected costs to the school district. We are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with the impact of growth on schools. Sincerely, ~n 7ne~ Dan Mabe Deputy Superintendent DM:gr H1tl8 ~r TREA~U~c ~'Ati_CY ` , ~? ~AS7 i€:AI°!13 ~ll~;?iOlAhl, Ii~AH® !33642 c <' ,_ i~ ~~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: c e_ ~A _y~~ Z~, ZG 3©~~ ~,i"~ ~o~P rv~7'C'2 $~ ~9g.~~ C3TYOrrA9ER1®IAIV . ~~`~ ~~-,~, ~~~>._~,%~_ lit38 Gr TREA5l3~cE l'Ai.LEY ' 33 EAST IE;AiiO fVfElaIDIAN, IQ~AIi® 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: 1-~ Z~lz 3 --~ ~_-----~ ---~~'-~-~~_=-----------------------------~~ y = ~ ~~------------ ~ C~R!GI~~~~~ BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RON WALSH PINE STREET DEVELOPERS PORTIONS OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION INCLUDED IN SECTION 8, T. 3N.,R. lE., B. M. ADA COUNTY ANNE7CATION AND ZONING PINE MEADOWS MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on April 12, 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, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this matter to the May 10, 1994, meeting to hear specifically from Applicant what the zoning request will be, 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that the matter was FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 tabled until May 10, 1994, for clarification of the zoning by Applicant. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 23.3 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-15 by the city of Meridian. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that some of the property to the north across Fairview Avenue is platted for commercial and residential uses; that there is ground platted for light industrial to the south and east of this property; there is unplatted ground to the west. 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; the owners of record are Dee and Helena Lowe, Jim and Lisa Beard, and .john Wasden; that the owners have submitted consents to this annexation and zoning request. 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 (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. There were no people appearing at the hearing either to object or to support the Application. 10. That the Applicant did not indicate the intended development of the property, did not submit any development proposals, and only submitted the request for R-15 zoning as of April 28, 1994; at the hearing the Applicant, Ron Walsh, stated that he was not particular about the zoning but would take an R-15 zoning; that the Applicant did not indicate that there was park land or an open space corridor proposed in his development. 11. 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. 12. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed. 13. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines. 14. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian School District, Central District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, U. S. West, the Meridian Planning Director, Meridian City Engineer and the Ada County Highway District submitted comments and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented, among FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 other comments, that a sanitary sewer line exists along the north side of Fairview Avenue approximately 270 feet west of the northwest corner of Lot 6 and that a sanitary sewer line exists approximately 600 feet south of the south boundary of Lot 7; that no information was presented to show how this parcel would be sewered by gravity; that a water line exists along the north side of Fairview Avenue that is adjacent to this parcel and that a water line exists approximately 600 feet south of the south boundary of lot 7. 16. That the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that the annexation and zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan; that a park is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for this area; she requested that the Application be table until a new Mixed Planned Use Development zone was adopted; and she stated that the annexation could then be approved subject to receipt and approval of a development agreement. 17. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation request was that it will accelerate the need for the District to construct additional classrooms and/or adjust attendance boundaries; Meridian schools do not have excess capacity; and it asked for support of a development fee statute on new home construction or a real estate transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional school facilities. 18. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area. 19. That the R-15, Residential District is described in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums. 20. 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." 21. 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 . 22. 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." 23. 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." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 "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." 24. 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. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 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 (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. That Section 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That section 11-2-417 D states, in part, as follows: If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. If a commitment is required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 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 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, and 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 impact fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met. The development agreement, as a condition of zoning, shall also specifically address the uae and development of the subject property as allowed in 11-4-417 D; that the parcel shall not be annexed by ordinance until the development agreement is entered FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 into by the Applicant and the owners, and the City of Meridian; that the Applicant may have to apply for different zoning than the R-15 to meet the development requirements and the interests of the Applicant, which will require additional application, fees, notice and hearings. 10. That the Applicant's property would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan if it is developed as a planned development, 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, 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 the 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 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 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 COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED G~ V VOTED VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but that no annexation ordinance be passed until a development agreement, including a commitment for use and development, is entered into. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 ~ ~ ORIGIf~AL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BW, INC. REZONE APPLICATION 1225 E. FAIRVIEW FROM LIMITED OFFICE (L-O) TO C-G AND R-8 MERIDIAN. IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing May 10, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, appearing through its representative, Dan Torfin. 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 notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for May 10, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 10, 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 is owned by the Applicant. The property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned L-O Residential; the area surrounding FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 ~~ is a mix of commercial and residential use properties. 3. That the request to rezone is to rezone the northerly 135 feet south of Fairview Avenue as General Retail and Service Commercial, for use as a veterinary clinic, and the balance of the remaining L-O property to R-8 to be made a part of the adjacent Danbury Fair Subdivision. 4. That this zone change request complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and development objectives in this portion of the City. 5. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 11. as follows: (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. and the R-8 District is described in Section 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. 6. That the Applicants representative stated that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 property was 3/4 of an acre, that the north portion was going to be a veterinary clinic, that the south portion would be included into Danbury Fair Subdivision, that Jackson Drain was not on this property and is tiled in the area, there was 80 feet of frontage, that there would be landscaping including perimeter fencing, that there would be no outside kennels and that it was not a boarding facility. 7. That the veterinarian, Mike Peterson testified that there would be some boarding of small animals but only inside the building and that there would be no outside boarding of animal. 8. That Bernadine Morgan testified stating that she was concerned about outside kennels and that she desired protection from the construction that would take place. 9. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Central District Health Department, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted comments, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Irrigation District commented that all lateral and waste ways must be protected; that municipal drainage must be retained on site; and that irrigation water be made available to the development. 10. That the Meridian Planning Director commented that rezone is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, that the veterinary clinic would provide a good buffer from Fairview Avenue with landscaping required along Fairview Avenue and landscaping/screening next to adjacent residential area, any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 irrigation conveyance/drainage structures will need to be tiled, the Jackson Drain must remain open, and that coordination with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to possibly allow a bike/walking path is encouraged along the drain. 11. That the property is located on Fairview Avenue which is designated an Entryway Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan; the Entryway Corridors Goal Statement includes the following statement: 4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 12. That there have been recent commercial additions along Fairview Avenue. 13. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 14. 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;" 15. That Section 11-6-606 B 14, requires pressurized irrigation. 16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been followed. CONCLUSIONS FINDIN(i3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 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 Applicants' property. 2. 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. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: (a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The area included in the rezone designed to be rezoned to C-G is an area that probably would have been rezoned in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 future to a commercial zone. (c) The area included in the rezone application is intended to be developed in the fashion allowed in the new zones. (d) There have been changes in the area which tend to dictate that the property should be rezoned, and the property is designed to be developed in a fashion which comports with the existing development and the residential uses in the area. (e) That the property must be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) The proposed uses should not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property will be able to be adequately served with public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water is required. (h) The proposed use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. (j) Development as a veterinary clinic should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 6. It is further concluded that the recommendations, comments, and requirements of the City Engineer, if submitted, shall be met and complied with. 7. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District shall have to be complied with. 8. As a condition of rezoning, if there is room, the FINDINa3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 property shall meet the requirements of the Entryway standard of a 35 foot landscaped set back, which must be landscaped. 9. That it is concluded that the rezone is appropriate and should be granted. 10 That it is further concluded that the Applicant must, as a condition of rezone, look into whether or not irrigation water can be supplied by an irrigation district and a pressurized irrigation system installed that uses the irrigation water from the irrigation district; if irrigation water from an irrigation district can not be used, that the Applicant shall look into supplying irrigation water from a well; it is further recommended to the City Council that if irrigation water from a district can be used that such water use be required as a condition of rezone; that if irrigation water from an irrigation district cannot be used, that the Applicant be required to drill a well for its water for sprinkler use, as a condition of rezone. It is further concluded that if irrigation water from an irrigation district is not available or if a well cannot be drilled to supply water for irrigation, that this paragraph not be a condition of the rezone. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 J COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED '~- VOTED ~`~ VOTED VOTED ~~ ~~P. U The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, Ada County Highway District requirements, the Uniform Building Code, the fire and life safety codes, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that the Applicant meet the requirements of paragraph 10 of the Conclusions regarding irrigation water; and that the Applicant meet the 35 foot landscaped set back required under the Meridian Comprehensive Pla . MOTION: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 C~ ~ OR~G~~`~,~iL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SRERINAH INDUSTRIES ANNERATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 NS 1/4, SECTION 18, T. 3N.. R. lE., B.K. PRSSTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on May 10, 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 Mike Preston, 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 10, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the May 10, 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 ASPEN GROVE SSTATES ANNSRATION FF & CL Page - 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 34.24 acres in size; the property is west of Locust Grove Road and south of Franklin Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-15 Residential type development for a portion and with a portion C-N, Neighborhood Business District; the Applicant submitted a preliminary plat for approval with the application for annexation and zoning; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be 5,200 square feet, that there would be 135 lots in the proposed residential subdivision and 3 commercial lots; that the commercial lots would need conditional use permits prior to obtaining building permits for the exact detail of the proposed use; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be 1,000 square feet, that there would be 4.39 residential lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes, that all streets would be constructed to Ada County Bighway District and City of Meridian standards, that water and sewer will be provided by the City of Meridian, and irrigation will be provided by a pressurized system using Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District water. That the Applicant also represented in his letter to the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, sent along with his applications, that the project is in conformance with the Meridian Comprehensive ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 Plan and fits into the surrounding mixed uses of commercial, industrial and residential areas; that all of Meridian's Ordinances would be complied with; that a 35 foot landscaped buffer would be provided along Franklin Road; and that a 25 foot landscaped buffer and a 6 foot solid cedar fence would separate this development from the four neighbors on the east side. That at the public hearing the Applicant also stated that there now would only be 131 residential lots and 3 commercial lots, all services would be underground, that he wants to work with the Corp of Engineers about the flood plain, but in any event there would be no construction in the flood way, that there would be access to park or open space, that he was proposing open space along Franklin or Locust Grove Road, that he would provide street lights, that there would both "stick" built and manufactured homes, and that he would submit covenants. 4. The property to the north across Franklin Road is industrial zoned property; the property to the west is used for the Meridian Cemetery and a few residences; the property to the east and south is used residentially and for agriculture; that the residential property in the area is less dense than R-4 and more likely at less than one house per acre. 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 are Norman Brown, Montee McClure and Ivadco, Inc.; that the owners have submitted a request or consent to this ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 3 Application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned; that the zoning request is to have 30.5 acres zoned R-15 Residential and 3.7 acres zoned C-N, Neighborhood Business District; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-15 subdivision and C-N Commercial development. 10. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power Company, and U. S. West and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. The Meridian School District's comment 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: "Considering these facts, Meridian School District can not ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 4 ~J 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." 12. The Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that water is approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12 inch diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road, from its point of connection to existing water, east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length of this property's Locust Grove Road frontage; that sewer will need to connect to the Five Mile Trunk; that this sewer line will be built by St. Lukes Hospital but if it is not this property will have no sewer available; he also commented 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. 13. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that it is recommended that irrigation water be made available to development within this District. 14. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator submitted comment stating that the property requested to be zoned C-N had no plans submitted and this area should not be annexed until satisfactory details, including floodplain and engineering studies have been completed and submitted to the City; that R-15 Districts must abut or have direct access to a park or open apace corridor. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 5 She also stated as follows: "Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing, this proposal would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain/enhance quality of life for all residents, have new growth finance public service expansion, or prevent school overcrowding." 15. There were people testifying at the hearing: a. Morgan Plant testified that he wanted this project to be denied; that he desires compatible housing with those already in the area; that he desired large lots with large homes and to keep the density down, which to him meant anything above 1/4 of an acre for each dwelling unit. b. Robert R. Smith testified that he wanted the project denied; that it was not compatible with the area and he desires compatible housing; that the City of Eagle is requiring larger lots and he thought that was the correct move; that he recommended that there only be three lots to the acre. c. Elwood Rennison stated that he wants denial of the project; that the drainage would flow into Five Mile Creek which was a good enhancement for wildlife; that there was not enough information on the types of homes that were planned for the project; that there should be more input on the types of homes before the presentation is considered. d. Sherrie Wallace testified that she desired 1/2 acre properties and that she did not want commercial there. e. Alan Fox stated that he recommended that the project be denied; that the traffic on Locust Grove Road and Franklin is too much already and too many accidents. f. Reece McMillan testified that this would create too much traffic; that Locust Grove Road was to soon cross over I- 84 and that would increase the traffic even more; that the area now has one acre lots or larger; that this project should be rejected. g. Ted Hanson stated that there would be problems with access to Locust Grove Road and that he did how the commercial would work. h. Marshall Smith testified that the high density was bad and that it only lowered property values and brought in ASPEN OROVB ESTATES ANNBRATION FF & CL Page - 6 youth crime; that the traffic problems would be bad; that the Commission should only consider developments that were comparable to what was there now; that he desired that the Commission give the project a resounding denial. i. Mike Preston submitted rebuttal testimony which was that he did not change any entrances; that there would be a traffic light at Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road; that Locust Grove Road was an arterial road; that Franklin was planned for five lanes; that the Comprehensive Plan shows that higher density was allowed at the site; that storms water would go into Five Mile Creek; that development enhances property values; that he will screen so people would not be shut down aesthetically; that he will not build in the flood way but he desires to work with the Corp of Engineers to locate exactly the location of the flood way; that he is expecting the homes along the rim would be $125,000.00 to $130,000.00 in value; that most of the homes would have 1,300 square feet. j. Velma McMillan testified that the Commission should go through trailer parks to get comparisons for the type of subdivision that this project was going to be. 16. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 17. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods,. north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 18. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development patter of higher density ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 7 development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas. 1.8U Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential area that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 19. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods." 20. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U New urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. 6.9U Proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. 6.10U New urban density development should provide perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties." 21. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNExATION FF & CL Page - 8 increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 22. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 23. That the R-15 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: "(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct accesa to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums."; that the Neighborhood Business District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 8 as follows: "(C-N) Neighborhood Business District: The purpose of the (C- N) District is to permit the establishment of small scale convenience business uses which are intended to meet the daily needs of the residents of an immediate neighborhood (as defined by the policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan); to encourage clustering and strategic siting of such businesses to provide service to the neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such uses into the adjoining residential districts. All such districts shall give direct access to transportation arterials or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute all or any part of a strip development concept." 24. 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 ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 9 sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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 ASPEN (TROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 10 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. 28. 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. 29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 30. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 31. 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 ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 11 -+.a the subdivision;" 32. That Section 11-9-605 K atates as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 33. That Section 11-9-605 L atates 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 Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as i by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 12 CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 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 ASPEN GRO{1E ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 13 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 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; ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7CATION 1~F & CL Page - 14 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; however, the specific plan for development and the requested zoning for all of the land is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the Meridian Comprehensive Plan does indicate that the area is a Mixed/Planned Use Development area, but that does not necessarily mean a high density area. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates in the RESIDENTIAL POLICIES that the City is to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, and encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. And the Comprehensive Plan indicates in the RURAL AREAS that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. 11. That it is concluded that the property requested to be zoned R-15 does not abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor; that therefore the zoning of the property as R-15 does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and such zoning would not be in ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 15 the best interests of the City of Meridian. 12. That it is concluded that since the existing residences in the area, four of which would abut this development, including those that are east of Locust Grove Road, need to be buffered by transitional densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R- 2, R-3 or R-4 lots or lots that have less density per acre; that the property requested to be zoned C-N should not abut the single family residential property to the south and should be located more along Franklin Road rather than adjacent to the existing homes on Locust Grove Road; that the R-15 zone is too dense of a residential zone this distant from the center of town and in an area which is developed with one to five acre, or more, dwelling units per acre; that the R-8 zone would be more compatible along Franklin Road to a depth of approximately 250 to 300 feet and then have R-4, or less dense zoning southerly therefrom; that the R-4 zone should abut the single family residential property which is shown on the proposed plat to the south of the C-N property; that it is not the City's intention to plan the plat for the property but the way that it is proposed to be zoned and plated now does not fall in line with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing residential lots are not buffered and would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. Also, the R-IS zone requires that the R-15 property have direct access to a park or open space and this Application does not meet that requirement. 12. That it is concluded that the if the Applicant does not amend its plat, request one or more different zones, and consent to ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 16 a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, filed and considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this annexation and zoning application should be denied. 13. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, that this property should be annexed and zoned as approved by the Commission. 14. That it is concluded that the comments of the Meridian School District must be duly considered and taken with great weight; that Applicant is informed that elementary students may be transferred outside of the Chief Joseph Elementary attendance zone by the Meridian School District due to the overcrowding that that school is experiencing; however until the Meridian School District informs the City that it can no longer accept any new students, the City has no authority to deny residential development; it is noted that there are now pending other requests for annexation of property to be developed residentially which are in the Chief Joseph attendance zone but the same type of letter as received on this application was not received in most of the other applications. It is further concluded that this Applicant did not offer a means to help the School District solve the overcrowding problem and the property is of such a size that such could have been done, or could be done. This Applicant and the School District are encouraged to meet to discuss and investigate if there ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7CATION FF & CL Page - 17 are any possible ways for this Applicant to help the School District with its overcrowding problems. 15. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the Applicant shall meet all of the conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 16. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 17. 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. 18. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNSSATION FF & CL Page - 18 address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, R, 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 impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 19. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 20. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 21. With compliance of the conditions contained herein including an amended plat, request for one or more different zones, the consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; that if these conditions are not met the property should not be annexed and zoned. ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 19 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( ~f ~~~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTE ~~,. COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that with compliance of the conditions contained herein in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including an amended plat, request for one or more different zones, the consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission approves of the amended plat, then the annexation and zoning would be in the beat interest of the City of Meridian, and the Commission would then recommend approval of this annexation and zoning; that if these conditions are not met the property should not be annexed and zoned. MOTION: ~/ / APPROVED:// DISAPPROVED: ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 20