The URL can be used to link to this page

1994 04-12 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 8, 1994: (APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 14, 1994: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF JOINT WORKSHOP HELD FEBRUARY 22, 1994: (APPROVED) 1. HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: TABLED AT MARCH 8, 1994 MEETING): (TABLED UNTIL MAY 10, 1994 MEETING) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASPEN GROVE ESTATES WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT; (DEFER UNTIL APPLICANT RESUBMITS APPLICATION) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MERIDIAN ENERGY WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1994 MEETING) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW( 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES BY AVENUE ONE AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MELODY FARNSWORTH FOR A CERAMIC AND GIFT SHOP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC. AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR ROBERT GLENN: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSOINS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE MEADOWS: (TABLED UNTIL MAY 10, 1994 MEETING; APPLICANT TO DESIGNATE ZONING) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11.PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK BY STEELE & SON AND GARY LEE/ J-U-B ENGINEERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2 BY MAX BOESIGER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT AND PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS: (PASS ON A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS a~P~-w¢cL -MINUTES OF PREVI~OpUS ME~FTING HELD MARCH 8, 1994: 1P~~°e with ~'orrectsn..r ~~®~~Y~~ ~ MINUTES OF SPEC@AL MEETING HELD MARCH 14, 1994: ~pp,~YZ~.-MINUTES OF JOINT WORKSHOP HELD FEBRUARY 22, 1994: 1. HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: TABLED AT MARCH 8, 1994 MEETING): •fit~Gc~i /.fire-C".- ~r.0 /d'~ ~n,ec~ 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASPEN GROVE ESTATES WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: h - G,.i.~C /f.E' (Fu ~ N'wL~ ~'n-ecs~/C~''a.,.i g re zvrw-~~j 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MERIDIAN ENERGY WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION AND HUBB~~NGI ~ ERING: L'/~ ~~"tne~n p, e~lwre e L 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES BY AVENUE ONE AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (/~~, ~ct/~'N~c~ ~or~Zpctic ~/~w~•~~ C/L 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MELODY FARNSWORTH FOR A CERAMIC AND GIF/T/ SHOP: vd `~~`h~, ~rQ,/~},„_,~ ~+~~' aNe"+n'~J prepoze ~lt~ ~z~1c, C'~G ~hcC fa L~~`~1'-C' 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC. AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: /~ C'r~ ~t~~~m.~%ref' 7 ~~ w~ ~~C 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ANN ATION AND~Q_NING FOR ROBERT GLENN: 9. PUBLIC HEARI G: ANN ATION AND ZONING FOR PINE MEADOWS: ~~z~/er~'unt~/ f'~a~/a~~ Vii- aop~~zute fz~ ~l'u.h:~.`~~.~h~ 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: 11.PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK BY STEELE & SON AND GARY LEE/ J-U-B ENGINEERS: C'/Z~ a~ttrn~he~ ~v ~,e~~z ~lF'~ C~G 12. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2 BY MAX BOESIGER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: 1,, /, 13. PUBLIC HEARING: PREL/IM!NARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT AND PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS: ~CC.I1' Gnt Q ~"rrL.C~f~' - / eCOy...r..-~'-~._6t°Rt~fo~/ =:. _ - - -. 3 -- _ --- --_ - - _ _ _ _-- ------ _ ~ __ _ . - - --- _. --- _- - -- --. ~~ -- __ _ -- ~~~ ,~-8 ? - ~--- --- /~~ /~ ~Gliivn-~2. ---_~~ lie ~. __- __~ __._ • ---.. __ __ ,~; • • ~ ~' ~~~ ------- ------ _ __ __ -- ----- - ---~~---~'~-cQ~e ~Pce~r~.e~~-fry __ _ _ -. ~~ nA P~ '~V {/~_. __. ~~_ / rl.Tife~ ~ ~ j _ _ --- -- - ,a : ~ ---- - ., - - -- -_ _ T/(~ __, _ __ _ ~ ~'. - --- _ _ __ _ _ -. ~ _ - ~ ___ ---- ---- - _ ----_ ---_87,~~ffi,~~.--- --------- ~~-- J ---- _ __ _..__ --.._ - -- rS~ ~---------_ _._ ---__----------1 --- __ ~ ~v(ce~~~~l ie~~~ r--~,h t ~i'~e ~~ B2 G~rin.LL-n. c{~ F- - ----- _..__ _- ___ /hcc_.~2o-z.~- ---- ___ __-- -- ._.. ---- -- -- --------- -- -- _- _ __ ~/~~ _ LGL2L~__-_~~> --_ - _ ~' - _ __ `B~ ~~~- Z - -- - ~ ~- - -- -~ - -- ~'! P~?n ten: _ /~GL~-! - - - -- -- - X32 ~-I. ~~-?~--a~ - -- ~ - - ---- -- ~ _ ~i-d/.~~- " `~G~..~~ ate` .a~a~l » e_.-+ ~ -_ - ~oa~C ~~%s T °~„- L/e ~0' C'h.e-ti- ~/ L ~~ ~. c~eL ~~-zc~ceu-~.eJ ~, n ,/~ ~ / /~~ 7 --- _---- ~~~ --- _ _ _ ---- - _ _ _ __2-,~_ ------ ----- -- s 1 .- - ----- --- -_ ~~~i~ - _--- -- - ~-e~.r 7 ~ __- ~ __ _ ---- ~ __._ __ __. _- -- ~^ r _. ___. ___ _- _- -- -- - ~~, ~~`n ~ -- --~ _- _. -- --- _ _ - -- __ _ ___ __. _ .- - -_ 9r~ ~Ic~e~ - __ - -- - - ~/ ~ ~-GGt.L~Lvv~Gv~ic~ _, -~ -- d` _ -- ___ _ -------~ ,~i 2~ /~-uc~a.~~- - i~ ~YGZ~dC~ _Oyf_ C~yt~,2~~cc.J __ F ~ __ - C~~~~ ~,PitG~t a~ -- _ ~ ~~~ U 4~`~ ~~_ ~`GC~Cc ~C T ~ G2~lLL~ - -- `~ -- __ _ _. - _ ~j (~LZC"C,~~~41 C~C_.-- -.. _. - -- - ._ 7 _ r _ /L6 !D~-e QZ'1°.2G~82r/Z~GL'~ _- _ .~C _ h p ~11,`.~. GvG~Ch~ ___ _ - - _ _ ..'~.~hGL'TL-L'f ~~'L ~G~C~~_~~~3~.1 _._ __. - ~ ~_. _~ f ---- -- -- - --- --- ~c~.~s~~ ~- --- ~~a -° ~ ~~ ',~a~-~-/vd-ct.d. ~~ ~.~zr _-- --- --- - --- ---- ~ ---- ~a~~ ~ --- - - _ -- - --- --- ___ --- _-- __ _ __ _____ -- ___ _ --- _-~ ------ -- _ --~; ~ ~_a~ ___T --- ---- ----- --- -- -- i -_-- _ -- /~ --- ~ -- ___ _ ----- __ - -_ ~3 -- / _ _ __ -- __ --- __- - -- T - - -- -- --- __ _--- 1 ---------- --- J _ _ -- ---- _-- --- _ -_ _.~ ---- --_-_ ~~iL - -- yy, ~ -- - -- ~ -! _ -. !/CG~C __ - - - - X ~'C~l`~~`- --~ --___`---- ~ ~ - - -_ --- _ _ _ - -- ~~2f k __---- ~C ~ ~~~ /h du<z~ ~ • • 0 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ~17~5~,~ b-~Sr2~~ --------~JcJ ------l,C~ ~ ~ S l~ ---------------------------------------- ~ ~------------------------------- ~k - ~~ ~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: Sod 6so n ~ µ ~~~~ ~_i_~G~~'P~~~~~'--------------------855`~-_~~~----------------------- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 2 Johnson: Any corrections, deletions, or additions to those minutes? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we approve the minutes. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF JOINT WORKSHOP HELD FEBRUARY 22, 1994: Johnson: Are there any corrections to these minutes? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the special workshop held February 22, 1994. Shearer: Seconded Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: TABLED AT MARCH 8, 1994 MEETING: Johnson: This was tabled at March 8, 1994 meeting. We have a letter from the developer basically stating he is not ready at this time. Shearer: I move we table this until the next meeting. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Did you have something you wanted to add there Mr. Collins? Collins: Yes sir, I talked to the client this afternoon and he gave no indication of submitting a letter where he was not prepared for presentation. We are prepared for presentation tonight. It was tabled because of the ownership difficulties and he completed the purchase this week. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 3 Johnson: Well, as I recall the letter (inaudible) confused and I don't have it right here in front of me, he was requesting different zoning and wanted to waive the conditional use permit and some other things. Collins: We don't have a conditional use permit request on this project. Johnson: Yes you are right that is correct., Okay we will back up. Shearer: So, we don't want to table this? 1 will withdraw my motion. Johnson: Is this a public hearing, it is not listed as a public hearing. We have already taken public testimony on this. Crookston: I believe that we have. Johnson: So we are continuing the public hearing, even though it is not listed as one. Crookston: I would have to look back at the minutes to see whether the hearing was continued, whether or not it was closed and then tabled. Johnson: Well, vve had a public hearing, closed it and then we tabled it until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Crookston: So, it is not a continuation of the public hearing then. Johnson: Okay, in conjunction with this application we have a letter of recommendation from our Planning and Zoning Director that this project continue to be tabled or denied until certain information is received by staff. This is an April 8, 1994 letter, do you have a copy of that letter Mr. Collins? Collins: Yes, we have all the information available. In fact I believe it has all been delivered. Johnson: Do you have that now Shari? Stiles: (Inaudible) Johnson: Okay, let's make an attempt to go through this. Mr. Collins will you come forward and address the Commission please. Why don't we start by addressing the letter from Shari Stiles. • i Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 4 Collins: Since the last hearing I have completed putting the entire subdivision plat into the computer. Everything is in coordinate geometry now. All Tots do check greater than 8,000 square feet. Frontages are accurate, everything is depicted, all numbers are shown and she has copies of that now as far as the drawing is concerned. The right of way was worked out in 2 meetings with the Ada County Highway District as well as some interior street alignments. There were some modifications on those, which are depicted on the new plat that I presented. Pine Street right of way is now at 33 feet on the half section, a 7 foot landscape strip which would potentially provide a 40 foot half section in the future. All the information on the preliminary plat is on there for sure now. The second paragraph addresses the adjacent areas and one way in and out etc. As far as the Highway District is concerned traffic wise this project only requires one ingress/ egress until it reaches 100 lots, which is the capacity of a (Inaudible) intersection, excuse me a stop sign T intersection. We do have one lot which is shown sub-standard in the very northwest corner, it is 63 feet wide, it relies the adjoined, Mr. Tom Eddy to provide the additional land. We are preparing at present time at my office an application for that land to be annexed and rezoned as well as connected in with a road to the road in Haven Cove No. 4. That will be forth coming probably Thursday, if there is a glitch we can get it cleaned up by Friday. That will put it on the agenda for next month. If we wish we can simply delete that portion, that 63 feet up there is not apart of and we will include it on the plat of the Haven Cove No. 6 application that we will be putting in. We have one stub street to the east as worked out with the Ada County Highway District. Note on plat should indicate direct lot access or parcel access to Pine Street is prohibited and of course the final plat will reflect that. Its not only prohibited, it is fairly well precluded because all lots on Pine Street have an intervening landscape lot over which the owners of the adjacent residential lot would have no authority to traverse anyway. So, access is cut off to Pine Street by the landscape strip. We will observe the ACHD policy, we observe all ACHD policies, rules, regulations and standards or they don't sign our plat and we don't record. So, as far as the off set to the street on the south side of Pine we verified that is more than 125 foot off set. And our entrance is in a good location. The authorization for relocation will be worked out with the owners of the ditch which it is not a lateral association or anything, this is now below the head gate and just in the owner, water users interest. We will work that out with Mr. Eddy adjoing on the west. That is about all I have to say. Alidjani: Mr. Collins, you said this was put together about 2 days ago? Collins: No Alidjani: Did you change it from the approximate 9500 square feet to 8,000 square Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 5 feet? Collins: Well the average is probably still around 9500, the minimum lot is 8,000 square feet. None of them go below 8,000 square feet. Alidjani: She was indicating that she got that today, is that correct? Collins: This morning, and then we have additional copies we gave her tonight. Alidjani: So then we don't have those copies ourselves? Collins: No, there are 30 of them over there would you like one? We have a reduces 300 scale also which would be easier to handle on the podium up there. Alidjani: Gary, have you had a chance to take a look at those? Smith: No Johnson: Questions of Mr. Collins? Is there anything you would like to add Shari regarding testimony or subject discussed by David? Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I would like it to be tabled. We still have to send it out to the agencies again, there are quite a few changes and things that need to be addressed. Johnson: So, you don't feel we have had adequate time to study it. Stiles: No. I haven't even had a chance to look at it. And Gary I know hasn't. 1 think it has to be re-submitted to the agencies. Johnson: Thank you Shari for that, what is your pleasure gentlemen. Collins: Mr. Chairman, one comment on that, I did discuss with Mr. Wayne Forrey, the significance of changing 2 of the streets to the west to culdesacs instead of having 3 out to the west just have one. And that is the principle significant change that has been made since the original preliminary plat was submitted. Mr. Forrey indicated to me that changes like that during the processing of preliminary plat were not unusual in his experience and this was the purpose of the preliminary plat process was to have things influx so things could change but not run it back through the hearing process everytime. There are no changes that we have made to this that would affect any of the utility company requests, their requests are most normally Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 6 generic, they want easements in certain locations and we understand that from doing these things for years. So, we see no real, the biggest change of course with the Highway Department we have had 2 meetings with Mr. Sale regarding the alignments and culdesacs and through streets or not through streets etc. So the agency that is most concerned with change that have been involved here has been very close contact in making those changes. And we see nothing significant enough that should warrant a tabling again. There is nothing more that we have (inaudible) impact our design. Johnson: One of the things we are trying to guard against as a Commission and it is difficult to do with so many items is not make decisions without having all the proper input. I have to rely on our administrator and she is not comfortable at this point it is not any reflection of your abilities what it is, is our workload and if we can't meet that criteria and have things on time and with time to study it in advance we are not going to be able to do the best job we can for the public. That is my personal opinion on it, it is something that you are probably going to run into more with the tack type of workload and the number of applications that we have submitted we are not going to be able to move things along as quickly as we have been able to in the past. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this until the staff has had time to review the recently submitted information and until the Commission gets an opportunity to review the information. Alidjani: I will second Rountree: I will amend that motion to our next regularly scheduled meeting in May 10th. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting on May 10th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASPEN GROVE ESTATES WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: We are not prepared to handle that this evening because we don't have finding of fact and conclusions of law prepared, is that correct? Crookston: That is correct. The reason there are no findings of fact is because it is Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 7 my understanding the applicant is changing the application. Johnson: That is my understanding. What action do we need to take? It wouldn't beatable would it. Rountree: It would have to be a re-hearing wouldn't it. Crookston: He is going to have to have a re-hearing on the initial on the changed application. Johnson: Is there any action we need to take on item #2? Crookston: You could deny it, you might want to hear from the applicant and see if he has any suggestions. Preston: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I am going to do is resubmit the conditional use permit as a preliminary plat request. I am changing it to a subdivision with public streets, public sewer and public water, I am taking care of many issues that the neighbors addressed at the last hearing and hopefully it will be received a little more favorable. I don't know if we need to rehear the, well I guess we do because I requested the wrong zone. It is a zone that you don't have yet. It is in ;your future. So I am requesting an R-15 rather than that Mixed PUD zone. And I will do this by Friday and when will that be heard then, I think it will be fair to the neighbors that are here to know when that next hearing is going to be. Johnson: Well, we have to go through our notice process again, it means the earliest we would be able to hear it would be the first meeting in May the 10th. Preston: Okay, I just wanted the neighbors to know. Johnson: We meet the second Tuesday of every month that is our regularly scheduled meeting. Preston: So, I am in favor of just deferring it for reapply. ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MERIDIAN ENERGY WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: These findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been prepared. We need to move this to our next meeting I would assume. Is that correct Wayne? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 8 Crookston: Yes Johnson: Should we make an attempt to put it on our special meeting schedule? Crookston: That was my understanding that it would be on the special meeting on the 26th. Johnson: 1 would like a motion to that effect, if you are in agreement. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move that we table or consider this item on our April 26th special meeting. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table until our Special meeting scheduled for April 26th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION CORPORATION AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative from Brighton Corporation that would like to come forward and address the Commission at this time? Gene Smith, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Smith: Good Evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, tonight I represent Brighton Corporation in this matter. I bring to you a request to annex and zone a 40 acre parcel of land that is located south of Ustick between Ustick and the south slough approximately mid way between Locust Grove and Meridian. Specifically the properties to the east and south of this proposed development have equal density. We are requesting an R-8 density. This Fothergill Point and Finch Creek both have the R-8 zoning classification. The development can be serviced by central water and sewer, the development of this property will cause Ustick Road right of way to increased from its present 50 foot to 70 foot. There has been only one comment from City Staff which Gary Smith commented on and that was, well there were several comments but only one needs to be commented on and that is the legal description for this annexation must include half of Ustick Road adjacent to the property. The description of the property is a government lot which automatically Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 9 goes to the section line. So it does include half the Ustick Road. Other comments, there were no other comments from City Staff, it is a pretty straight forward annexation and zoning. I do have a representative Mr. Mike Tanner from the Brighton Corporation here with me this evening if you should have any questions of either one of us. Johnson: Thank you very much Mr. Smith, any questions of Hubble engineers representative? Rountree: You indicated right of way on Ustick would be 70 feet, but I believe it would be 90 feet, 45 feet from center line. Smith: That is correct. Johnson: Any other questions? Shearer: I have a question, the surrounding subdivisions that are zoned R-8 were zoned with conditions I believe. 1 think the R-8 zoning was to reduce the lot size adn not necessarily make 8 units to the acre. I was wondering what kind of density as far as actually lots per acre that you anticipate in this? Smith: Well, we are still working on the specific site plan for the site. I would not expect it to be that dense. In conformance with the adjacent properties, we believe that it does or it would be compatible with the adjacent subdivisions at that zoning. Crookston: Along that same line, those other subdivisions were zoned R-8 but they agreed that they would only be single family subdivisions. Smith: That is my understanding. Shearer: Did we have a minimum house size on those too at 1350 or something like that. Would that be acceptable do you think, 1350 minimum house size. I believe that is in conjunction with the surrounding subdivisions. Mike Tanner, 12301 West Explorer, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Tanner: We will be, I will say Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission we will be consistent with the subdivision in the surrounding area. I think we are requesting an R-8 zone for a little bit of trade off at some density trade off, because the south slough traverses this property from east to west at the south end. We will be putting in a park like corridor through there, a green belt type area with a pathway and in Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 10 doing that we will lose some acreage and I guess in attempting to make up for that the lots might be a little bit smaller and that is the request for the R-8, it will not be 8 units to the acre. Probably more on the order of 3.5 to 4 per acre. I think the density trade off there is the reason for requesting the R-8 zone. As to a minimum home size, I don't know. I have to be honest I don't know what your minimum requirement for a home size on an R-8 or under this particular circumstance wouldn't want the r-8 to apply necessarily because as I say to will be much greater than that, but I don't know what the minimum is. Smith: My understanding would be that it would be a requirement at the time of preliminary plat. Johnson: It would be, this is just annexing and zoning. Tanner: 1 simply would state that I wold want to put in a quality project and be consistent with the neighborhood in the area and what we do we try to do in a quality way. And so I will make that statement to the Commission. Johnson: You may wish to review the actual conditions put on those neighboring subdivisions that that you are aware when you submit your preliminary plat kind of what we are looking for. Than you, this is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing none then I will close the public hearing. Need findings of fact. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Brighton Corporations application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES BY AVENUE ONE AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative of Dakota Ridge Estates, will you please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 11 David Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Roylance: Dakota Ridge is located about a 1 /4 of a mile west of the intersection of Ten Mile and Ustick Road on the south side of Ustick. This is a 135 lot residential development. We propose City Water, city sewer, standard underground utilities and Ada County Highway District public streets. We have done a traffic study as requested by ACHD and that has been turned into them and they have approved it about 2 weeks ago. Could I answer any questions? Johnson: I will start with the letter from our Planning Administrator, have you had an opportunity to review that? Roylance: Yes, sir I have. Johnson: There is a recommendation there that it should be resubmitted. Roylance: I don't know that the issues are that significant. If that is what it takes, I could respond to these things. I don't know that it is significant enough to warrant a resubmittal. Johnson: Let me tell you where we are at, we do not have any comments from ACHD. Often times those are critical to what we do. That coupled with her recommendation kind of leads of towards perhaps not hearing this tonight. If you would like to address these items that she, these 4 paragraphs, the Commission would appreciate that. Roylance: Okay, regarding ACHD we have met with ACRD and we are working with the developers of the Lake at Cherry Lane I believe it is called to the south. So, regarding all of the street issues, that is should there be a stub street to the west or to the south and should we connect with the adjoing subdivision. Which the answer is yes we should. All of that is currently being worked out with ACHD and the developers to the south and it is pretty much decided. There are a few minor things to iron out with them and that should be the end of that. I don't think that is real significant. That is probably why you don't have a letter from ACHD. We have been to their tech review meetings and we have modified our plat to accommodate their requests. And also to mesh with the subdivision to the south. Johnson: Was that meeting with ACHD is that a recent meeting? Roylance: Yes it was, it was about 2 weeks ago or something like that. Regarding the fire station and the park and the school, I don't know what really we are being Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 12 asked to do specifically in this letter. But our attitude is we would be happy to cooperate within reason to see a fire station in the area. I don't know what the next step would be but we realize that our project stresses the infrastructure and we would be happy to pay our fair share. We would like to not pay over our fair share but anything we can do to facilitate a fire station within reason we would like to do that. I don't know if it is appropriate right in a residential subdivision. I guess it can be done, but there may be another place to put it. It may be better to put a fire station in a park but yet still near Ustick Road. I think that might be more compatible than trying to tuck into a corner of the subdivision. We will cooperate on that issue. Regarding the Rutledge Lateral, we will put the easements on the plat and we will pipe and the the ditch as required by your ordinance. Regarding the pedestrian walkways, we will be happy to work with Shari and put them wherever you need them. Some of these I have been talking with Mike who has been doing some of the work here some of the conversations with Shari. And apparently maybe one of these pedestrian walkways has nothing to connect to. I think that is the one in Englewood, but in any event we are not opposed to putting in 3 connections where they are needed. I don't know that it would take a deferral to do that. We would be happy to put them where they would like them. Regarding Gary Smith's comments, I will go down those briefly if you would like. Johnson: Thank you Roylance: Number 1, I believe he is talking about our description in going to the center line of Ustick road, which that is typical it is farmland it is usually deeded to the center of the road. So, when we plat we will make a dedication to ACRD for the right of way on Ustick Road. And we do have the approved street names back, we submitted those to Gary just recently, I think today. Should a stub street be provided to the west, no I don't think so. ACHD didn't want one there so apparently according to ACHD they don't care to have one there. Can Ogibowe connect to the proposed stub from the Lake at Cherry Lane, yes it can. That is one of the details that we have been working out and have not resolved. Will Tuscora Drive be culdesaced since there isn't a proposed street stub from the Lake, yes it will. Number 6 talks about a 12 inch diameter water line on Ustick Road which we will do. And the lot dimensions and item 7 talks about deficiencies of the preliminary plat regarding frontage and other dimensional standards. That has all been corrected, there is plenty of room to make those adjustments on the preliminary plat. And we have done that. Number 8 says too much sewer line is being placed in a pathway in Block 2, can the street alignment be revised to eliminate the length? We can move, I would like to leave the street alignment where it is because it does have a pretty serious ripple effect on us if we move the street, it affects the lot layout of some of this. We can shorten that pathway by moving it slightly to the west and align it down to lot lines. And that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 13 would be the same length that it will all ready have to go to on the south of our project that is 2 lot lengths to get into our project. So we can make that consistent with what is already being done. Number 9 talks about the Rutledge lateral and we will pipe that. The southwest corner and the westerly side of the project will take a temporary lift station to service that with sewer and we are planning to work with the development to the south, The Lake at Cherry Lane and share a lift station with them, a temporary lift station to sewer that part of the property. And we are in the process of establishing the highest seasonal groundwater. And just today we did submit an overall plan of the water system to Gary so he could look at the fire hydrants, the valuing and street lights. I believe all of those issues have been addressed and they are fairly minor. Is there anything else I can answer? Johnson: Gary Smith, are you satisfied with those comments, is there anything you would like to add, is there anything unanswered? Smith: 1 just (inaudible) what they have said (inaudiblel. Johnson: Thanks Gary, any questions of Mr. Roylance? Hepper: I've got a question, would you address the entryway and landscaped berm on Ustick Road and what you plan to do there. Roylance: We plan to put a 20 foot wide landscape berm all the around Ustick right through here. (Inaudible) it will be a raised berm, long and low growing. Hepper: Will there be a fence? Roylance: I don't know that we made that decision. I don't know that we are opposed to fencing. Hepper: Are you going to leave that up to the homeowners? Roylance: No, this would be installed by the developer, we don't want to leave it up to the homeowners because we want some consistency and continuity. Hepper: Yes that is what I was thinking, if you leave it up to the homeowners you would get different styles of fences. Roylance: And that is not our intent, it is our intent (inaudible). I don't know that I personally like the look of a fence, personally I like a mound and grass and vegetation springing up. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 14 Hepper: But if you don't put up a fence then the homeowners will put up a fence in their backyard. And then you will have, you have 15 lots back there, you will have different styles of fences. Roylance: That is true, I think we should fence, 1 change my mind. Hepper: I agree. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: I would just like to point out on your fencing issue that you be consistent with the City Ordinance. Roylance: Okay, we will Rountree: What is the easement of the Rutledge Lateral? Roylance: It is 40 feet, it says in this documentation that it is 60 feet, but according to the recorded easement it is 40 feet. Rountree: So, the edge of the lot lines you show on your plat here would be outside of that easement? Roylance: Well, we could do it any other way. Rountree: My question is are those lots in Block 5 of sufficient size to meet the ordinance? {inaudible) for the Rutledge Lateral. Roylance: Yes, they are, they are 108 feet, 106 feet deep and 80 feet of frontage. So, they exceed the 8,000 square feet. Rountree: But there is no easement in that. Roylance: No there isn't that is just to the line, I'll show you on the plat. That is just to this line here. The easement comes in through here. These dimensions from here to here, we actually tiled this, which we now will. We will extend these out to here from the lot. Well, let me just say the lots as shown here exclusive of these are 105 feet to 101 feet and that is the minimum that they would be and when we the that we will add an additional 40 feet to those dimensions although that additional 40 feet would be in an easement. We would use through a license agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. So, in summary the lots exclusive of the easement do Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 15 meet the dimensional standards of the zone. Rountree: You kind of shied away from the second paragraph about this being due south of the City's sewer treatment facility. Roylance: Well, we can't move the plant. Rountree: Is there someway to alert potential homeowners in this area that it is not the City's responsibility for any problem that it might create them in the future if in fact a developer does get the go ahead to develop this into a subdivision. Roylance: Yes, we can work with you to figure out how to alert them. I don't think there is much we can do to mitigate the situation. It is there, I don't think fencing or screening or bigger berms is not really going to make a difference. But, public notification is important so for all of us and we will comply with that. Johnson: Any other questions? We may call you back, thank you. This is a public hearing anyone else like to address the Commission at this time please come forward. Beveraly McKay, 2381 Monaco Way, was sworn by the Attorney. McKay: I have a concern (End of Tape) about the amount of traffic you are putting on Ustick road. I see you just approved, you have looked at one, you have looked at another, we have already got 3 going up on Ustick. At one point in time are you going to take it into consideration that there is a lot of traffic on that road. And that it is a 50 mile an hour road and it doesn't look like you are going to widen it very soon in the future. And that if we are we need to make an easement there for the widening. Johnson: Okay is that your comment? McKay: I would like an answer on it. Johnson: Well, basically we are here to collect testimony, we appreciate your comment. Anyone else, yes sir. Gary Johnson, 407 8 West Ustick, Meridian, was sworn by the Attorney. G. Johnson: First off that I would like to say that 1 am not opposed to this development. We have a family farm dairy just north of this proposed development. And I would just like to state for the public record that this is, we are zoned Rural Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 16 Agricultural, we have dust, flies. We spread manure, we have odors, noise all times of the day and night and spay planes. I would just like to say that I don't want to hear any complaints from the neighbors, I don't want to hear it. As far as the sewer plant goes, I think they would probably feel the same way. It does drift in the summertime, you will smell it and it is offensive. And I'm sure people think we are offensive too. But like I said I don't want to hear and I don't know maybe we could be a sign up that on the north side of Ustick that says behind this sign is rural agricultural and please excuse us for an inconvenience in the coming years and make them aware of what they are stepping in. That is the way I feel, we have always gotten along with our neighbors across the road and 1 hope that we get along with our neighbors in the future. That is all I have to say. Johnson: I have a question, would you elaborate on the spraying that caught my ear. G. Johnson: Well, there is aerial spray in the neighborhood for insects. Does that answer your question, they usually spray at night when there is not drift. They are careful, but it bothers people. Johnson: What are they spraying for the record? G. Johnson: I couldn't tell you Johnson: Not the chemical, what kind of crop? G. Johnson: Oh, alfalfa, various insects on various crops. I am not up on that, I couldn't tell you. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public like to come forward? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Any comments from staff? What is your pleasure? Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Hepper: Second Johnson: There is a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MELODY Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 17 FARNSWORTH FOR A CERAMIC AND GIFT SHOP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is Melody or a representative here? Melody Farnsworth, 1991 Turnberry Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Farnsworth: I am requesting a conditional use permit to open a ceramic and gift shop. It is at 707 East 2nd, we are just north of the bank building over here in Old Town Meridian. I met with the Fire Marshall today, he had some concerns with the building and the fact that there has been a lot of fires here in Meridian. I found out that our occupancy is 16 persons. He seemed pleased with the decisions that we had made with the fire extinguisher, everything that we were doing for that. I don't know what else to say. Johnson: I noticed his comment to the Commission was the building should be brought up to fire safety codes, did he actually address codes with you and go to those. Farnsworth: He did, we went over and talked about everything that we were going to be doing. I do not intend on bringing my kilns which are very safe, they are fire brick and encased in metal. I do not intend on bringing those down to the shop. The only thing we will be having is classes in the evening, we will also have a gift shop up front, general lighting, general electricity, cash register. A mixer for mixing my slip. Like I said his concerns were occupancy 16 persons, exits, there are 2 exits to the buildings. We also have fire extinguisher, and also smoke alarms in every room and that seemed to satisfy his concerns. Johnson: Well, I understand that building has been vacant for several years. Farnsworth: It has been, it has been vacant for several years, it was boarded up the windows were missing, the back of the building waist deep in trash and garbage, broken toilets, sinks. We have cleared out that, the building itself has several pans of chemicals which was paint, mostly latex some enamel, those have been removed. We have hauled off 4 dumpster loads of burnt boards, toilets, sinks, trash, beer bottles. We have also contacted the City and found out before they did all the curb gutter and sidewalk improvements, there were 2 hour parking signs there. We had those replaced, and that is addressing Gary Smiths concerns about the availability of street parking. Directly in front of our building and in front of the bank building which is also vacant there is approximately 10 to 12 parking spaces. Like I said we did have the 2 hour parking signs replaced, they are back up there. Currently there are 3 spaces along the side of our building which is in the alley way next to where our i ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 18 dumpster is at that is a graveled area that people have been working there, people from the 127 and several other businesses around there. We do intend on using those for our parking for the business operators. Johnson: Do you plan on selling any food? Farnsworth: No we are not. And as far as the sewer and water assessment Mr. and Mrs. McFadden are the owners of the building, they have lived here in the valley for many years, they have lived here in Meridian. They also owned ad operated a business here and I do believe that this has been taken care of by them. With the Central District Health concerns on the fact that we will be selling food, we do not intend on selling food, there are no facilities for making food, storing food or serving it. And with ceramic slip and dust we wouldn't want it anyway. Other than we will be drinking pop and having snacks that sort of thing. I don't know on the very back page from Shari Stiles, she has said additional parking made available would need to have an asphalt surface, right now that is gravel and has been gravel for several years, I just want to find out about that. And the landscaping, there is a chain link fence that has been run over several times, we are intending on replacing the chain link fence with the privacy view. Like I said the back area has already been cleaned up, I clean up bear bottles, beer cans, and that sort of thing everytime I go to my shop. 1 do believe that I could be a benefit to the fact that these buildings are vacant there has been a lot of vandalism going on, there has been a lot of transients living there. The Fire Marshall told be today that one of the transients started a fire in the building up above. Since we have been there, we have been there almost a month or have been around the building for the last month. We haven't had any problems with transients or any kind of vandalism whatsoever. Landscaping, I don't know what kind of additional landscaping she intends, the curb, the sidewalk, the cobblestone has all been done. There are trees planted out front, I don't know what else you would request on that. I do intend on complying with all the building, plumbing and fire codes. And anything else that I have to do for the City Ordinance. Johnson: Any signage, you need to be familiar with our sign code. Farnworth: The only sign that we were going to put up was our private parking sign along the building where the alley way is. The 3 graveled areas parking spots that I was talking about. We want to put up a private parking sign there. The other signs like I told I had already contacted the City and those have been replaced with 2 hour parking signs which were there previous to the renovation. I do intend on maintaining and upkeeping the areas immediately surrounding this area. I could answer any other questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 19 Alidjani: I have one question, you said you would not have any intention to sell food, then later on you talked about pop and snacks, is that for personal employee use. Farnsworth: That is for just us the employees, Ihave acoke-aholic I have to have my coke, snacks are for us. Johnson: Any other questions of Melody? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing anyone else like to come forward and address the Commission on the Conditional Use Permit application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Gary Smith, with respect to your comment about the additional parking, you are talking about something other than what is already there or the existing parking being needing paving. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I just wasn't sure how many employees they were going to have so how much off street parking was required I didn't know. And the other thing as Shari Stites mentioned is that other business off street parking is provided and it is required in the ordinance that there are provisions that it needs to be landscaped and paved and so forth. Unless a variance is given to those landscape requirements those would be the improvement responsibility as I understand it. I don't know how many people will be using the facility at any one time. If there are that many parking spaces available on the street and I would assume that would be adequate. I just didn't know what employee load they had. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Smith, do we have any further discussion? Alidjani: 1 would like to ask her a question. What is the number of your employees? Famsworth: That is what I was about to address Mr. Chairman., there is myself and I have to co-partners. I would like to introduce here Linda Beckman, and 1 have another friend Darla Lewis, she has a shop in Kuna and they are going in with me on this ceramic and gift shop. Alidjani: 3 people total. Johnson: Will there be 3 people there at once or maximum? Farnsworth: Maximum 3 people, it would be nice if I could get them down there with me everyday, but I haven't had much luck so far. Johnson: Thank you, what is your pleasure, what would you like to do commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 20 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council on this Conditional Use Permit. Crookston: We need findings of fact. Rountree: In addition to that motion I move we prepare findings of fact with a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and include in that a favorable recommendation to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES INC. AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for Fire Light Estates please come forward and be sworn. Gene Smith, 9550 Bethel Court, was sworn by the Attorney. Smith: The proposed subdivision of Fire Light Estates consists of 27 lots on 8.1 acres for a density of approximately 3.3 dwelling units per acre. We are requesting a zone change, annexation, and preliminary plat approval. The site is located south of Ustick on Ten Mile Road. It is surrounded by R-4 zoning on practically all 4 sides, therefore the compatibility of the zoning fits into the existing conditions. The applicant is proposing a minimum 1500 square foot homes in the range of 5115,000 to 5165,000. The access to this project would be off of Ten Mile and also through the proposed Englewood Creek subdivision to the north. All the streets are proposed to be built to ACHD standards. The sewer will be connected to the north through the proposed Englewood Estates subdivision. Water will also be connected through Englewood Subdivision as well as looped out onto Ten Mile. And the comments that I felt had merit were those comments from Gary Smith and I would like to address those specifically item #2. I'm sorry item #3, verify the lot 14 and 17 block 2 have 8,000 square feet, we will have all of these lots have minimum square footage. Item #5, lots 10 - 13 on block 2 don't have an 8,000 square foot, we had originally proposed a 15 foot landscape buffer strip adjacent to Ten Mile Road by reducing that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 21 to a 10 foot landscape buffer strip these lots would have the 8,000 square foot usable area. Which I feel would be an acceptable proposal. The other major issue on Mr. Smith's comments was the fact that the project is in a zone AE flood zone. Currently that flood zone is being worked on with the project to the north in order to eliminate that flood zone a new culvert will be installed under Ustick and a letter of map revision will be applied for with FEMA to take the entire area out of the AE zone. Johnson: Does that conclude your remarks? Smith: Yes, do you want me to answer any other questions? Alidjani: Mr. Smith, Item #2, there is a concern that some of the lots are not 80 foot frontage, you didn't mention anything about item #2, I am curious. Smith: On the curve sections, I believe that is what he is referring to. Alidjani: Well he is referring to Lot 2, Block 1, Lot 14, Block 2, Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 13, Block 2. Smith: Specifically he was requesting the building setback to be back 45 foot for the minimum width. It does not have minimum street frontage that is correct. Alidjani: So, did you address that for item #2 on that plat or is that still as Gary has seen it before? Smith: Nothing has changed. Alidjani: Thank you Hepper: Would the sidewalk, would that be in the landscape easement, would that 6e a 5 foot sidewalk? Smith: The landscape easement on Ten Mile, that landscape easement is outside of the proposed right of way. Hepper: Okay, so the sidewalk would not be included in that 10 foot easement. Curb, gutter sidewalk and then 10 foot easement. Would there be a homeowners association to maintain that? Smith: It is proposed that it is a landscape easement on each of the individual lots, so that there would not be separate homeowners association. And they would Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 22 address within the CC&R's that those homeowners would be responsible for the maintenance of that landscaping. Hepper: Would they have to keep their fences Smith: On the easement line. Hepper: The back of their property line, the easement would not be included in there in their fencing area. In other words you would not come up to the sidewalk. Smith: That is correct and I would propose reducing that to 10 foot so you do have the 8,000 square foot of usable lot area. Hepper: Would the developer put in the grass and shrubs and sprinkler system and all of that and then turn that over to the homeowners? Smith: They would put in the initial landscaping yes. Hepper: What about sprinkler system, would there be 1 sprinkler system for that whole strip or would each homeowner be responsible for watering that strip strictly adjacent to their property? Smith: Well, I think you would really have to tie it onto each property, where you don't have a single, a homeowners association to run the system. Each property owner would have to be responsible for landscaping and maintenance thereof. Hepper: Would there be shrubs and trees along there or just strictly grass, what do you have in mind. Smith: They are intending on, the developers are intending on putting the initial landscaping including some shrubs and trees and making a requirement within the CC&R's that the homeowners be responsible for bringing up landscaping on their entire property to a specific minimum. Any other questions? Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Mr. Smith, Gary Smith, with respect to the comment regarding the frontage, can I have your input on that please and any other comments that you have. Eng. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, the lot, flag lot, the definition of Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 23 a flag lot as I read it from an ordinance (inaudible) and none of these lots in my opinion resemble a flag and therefore by ordinance an 80 foot frontage is required unless a variance is granted by the City Council and one has not been applied for that I know of. The 40 foot chord dimension applies to culdesac lots and it applies to lots that are on bulbs and I think we have gone through this before. Where some proposals have been made to reduce the frontage of lots that are on a curve in a street for one reason or another. This is my opinion of what a flag lot is and what flag lot is not. A flag lot does have an allowed 30 foot frontage if it is a true flag lot. These lots in my opinion are not flag lots, therefore they should be 80 foot frontages win compliance with the R-4 zone. The other thing I should mention, I didn't mention it in my comments in listening to the testimony all of the other subdivisions that I am aware of on Ten Mile Road and on Cherry Lane Road have provided a landscape buffer common area between the lots and the roadway. Ten Mile road is scheduled to be a 90 foot road right of way which is a 5 lane system. That is a center turn lane and 2 lanes in each direction for travel of vehicles. Candlelight subdivision which is shown to the east of this subdivision I believe has a 20 or 30 foot common lot that they provided with a tall berm and a fence. I think that everybody realizes that there will be a significant amount of road noise from this 5 lane roadway. 1 would suggest that some consideration be given to providing a buffer for that noise as well as a side buffer. I think you can all remember the problems that we had with Crestwood subdivision on Franklin Road. I don't personally think that was a correct solution but, because I think in time to come those people are going to which that there was a berm there to shield that. Did I answer your question on the frontage? Johnson: Yes you did, I expected that answer that is why I asked, I appreciate that. Eng. Smith: One more thing I might mention, we do have a sewer interceptor that travels along the south and west side of this subdivision. And it is very critical that the sewer interceptor not be fenced into the backyards of these lots. We need to maintain that 20 foot easement that we have over that sewer line. And that is a major interceptor and so we have to maintain access to that. The plat, even though the property goes to the center of the ditch, the plat, I guess it doesn't go to the center of the ditch, but anyway the plat needs to reflect that there will be no fences built, fencing that sewer off. Alidjani: Gary, I have a question, is that right between Candlelight and the other subdivision that is below that, the ordinal curbs and gutters because of the future expansion of Ten Mile. One has curbs and gutters and the other one doesn't sidewalks. Eng. Smith: Right, I think the Highway District changed their attitudes toward the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 24 improvements with the advent of the impact fee structure. They are requiring sidewalks be constructed by not curb and gutter, they will come back later and improve that as the street is widened. Johnson: Any discussion? Any further questions? Rountree: I have the same concern as Gary on the landscaping on Ten Mile and being consistent, being under the control of the Homeowners association and some continuity in the appearance. As far as the zoning it is consistent with what is going on around it. I have some reservations about the preliminary plat however. Alidjani: Wayne, do you have a definition on the way you define the ordinance for flag lots and not a flag lot, do you have any comments on that? Crookston: Well, just as Gary said, excuse me a flag lot resembles a flag and you have a minimum amount of frontage. Johnson: When you are talking flag you are talking pennate, triangular as opposed to the American flag for example. Crookston: Well, it could be either way. And these do not appear to be flag lots to me either. Johnson: Is it the Commission's pleasure to take some action at this time. Shearer: I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Johnson: Is there a second, if not the motion will die for lack of a second. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, 1 will second it, although I do have some reservations on the preliminary plat. Johnson: We can address those considerations in the findings of fact at that time. That is probably appropriate to have findings of fact. We have a motion and and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We will take a 5 minute break. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 25 FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR ROBERT GLENN: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for Mr. Glenn that would like to address the Commission, please do so at this time. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I am Ted Hutchinson of Tealey's Surveying representing the applicant in this case Mr. Bob Glenn. We are seeking annexation and a current rezone of the 25 acre parcel located on the north side of Cherry Lane. Approximately a 1 /4 mile east of the intersection of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane. This parcel is contiguous to the City of Meridian on 2 sides and actually getting close to 3 sides at this point. It is wedged in between the Sunnybrook Farms subdivision and the Sunburst subdivision and Kentfield subdivision which is under development and Tuthill subdivision which is also under development at this time. We are asking for a concurrent rezone with this annexation to an R-4. I believe the R-4 is compatible and consistent with the development which is existing in that area. We are working on a subdivision proposal at this time. Due to the configuration of the parcel being approximately 414 feet wide and over approximately 1 /2 mile deep it has presented a number of interesting challenges to design the lots for this proposal so that it will comply with the provisions of the development in the R-4 zone. We are taking into consideration the number of streets which are stubbed into this parcel, we have spoken with the Ada County Highway District and their preliminary assessment is that they don't want to allow another access onto Cherry Lane so we are going to have to accommodate the traffic through the interior streets which are existing. Again when we present the subdivision proposal we are hoping that they may reconsider that so that we can have an access onto Cherry Lane. Again we are taking into consideration the streets that are in the area, the existing development. We are trying to be compatible, the lot sizes will be over 8,000 square feet in size so that they will be consistent with the type Of development that is occurring in that particular area. Are there any questions that I might answer from the Commission at this time? Alidjani: Could you direct us with the comments that Gary Smith made please. Hutchinson: With regard to Mr. Smith's comments, as he has indicated with comment number 1 that it is contiguous to the city limits with the Sunburst and Sunnybrook. We will amend the legal description so it will include to the center line on Cherry Lane. With regard to the Rutledge Lateral, we intend to pipe that or the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 26 that in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the appropriate irrigation district. We noticed that there were several comments from the Irrigation district and we will work with the irrigation district to make sure those items have been complied with. Because of the length and distance of that, or the location of that it will be necessary for us to deal with that in the most efficient manor. But we will comply with the requirements of both the code and the irrigation district. Then again the stub streets from Sunnybrook and Kentfield and Sunburst, we have been talking with the Highway District and we are trying to make sure we accommodate those stub streets into the development proposal as it is being prepared. The sewer line, apparently this parcel has been looked at a number times and the only reason it has remained vacant, or one of the major considerations has been the provision of sewer to the parcel. It appears that a lift station may be in order an we will have to work with Mr. Smith the engineer to make sure that the sewer needs for this particular proposal can be met. Alidjani: So, you don't have any problem either with Gary Smith's comments or Nampa Meridian Irrigation? Hutchinson: No, we have no problems with those. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: Approximately how many lots do you anticipate being able to come up with in this parcel? Hutchinson: I believe we have come up with 87 at this point. We are staying within the development guidelines for the zone density and the lot sizes. We want to make sure we comply with the provisions of both the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Rountree: Have you given consideration to the possibility of expanding the neighborhood park facility that is at the end of Sunnybrook Farm? Hutchinson: We looked at that as an option, I believe that is, I don't know if that is a public park or a homeowners association common lot. I don't know at this point whether or not that can be accommodated. We have looked at this proposal in the larger scheme of things. We are I believe within a 1 /2 mile of Cherry Lane golf course and also within a 1 /2 mile of the proposed regional park at Ustick and Ten Mile. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 27 Tina Morse, 251 1 West Chateau, was sworn by the Attorney. Morse: 1 am here representing Sunnybrook Farms homeowners association, phase 2, 3, and 4. Our concern with this is one of the main concerns is our park. We have been feeling the burden as phases 2, 3 and 4 for a few years with the surrounding subdivisions having to maintain the park itself. It is running use 53500 and the burden is just on the 3 phases. Which everybody has access to the park, we have just now in the last 2 years extend the park on 2 sides, we bought brand new equipment and updated the front and things like that. But on the park we have spent in the last 2 years probably 57,000 to 58,000 in upgrading it. Our concern is the access be denied to Cherry Lane is going to be put on Chateau and that is right in front of the park itself and the new subdivision is going to be right there. I guess if we can have them maybe, if they have an association fee to maybe help us maintain the park or deny access on Chateau to the park. And that is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions? Anyone else? Kathy Reierson, 2043 Kristin Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Reierson: I also live in Sunnybrook Farms, I haven't been active in the homeowners association, but I do pay dues like everyone else in the 3 subdivision areas. I have a real concern that I have to pay money yearly to help keep up this park that I was told the City requires us to have because of the size of our subdivision. I have heard testimony about a number of different subdivisions that are going in the surrounding area. Although I am not real familiar with all of those plats I don't believe there are parks in all of them just like we have. I have a real concern that I should have to pay yearly fees to upkeep something that adjacent subdivisions are going to come into and possibly be using. Especially this one that we just heard testimony about which is probably going to use access through our subdivision because they are apparently being denied access from the Ada County Highway Department. I would like to know what can be done to make sure that more than just our subdivisions are paying these fees. I just don't think this is fair at all. I think if the City approves this perhaps the City should take the park over and they should fund it and the homeowners should not a burdened with this in Sunnybrook Farms. I am not at all pleased with this. Johnson: Do you have any other suggestions other than the City taking over the park? Reierson: Well, any donations, I don't like having to pay. I just got a flyer the other day from my child's elementary school, Linder elementary school that they are bringing children to this park in our subdivision to fly kites a couple days of the week. • ~ -~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 28 I have been told that our subdivision has liability for any children in that park at the time. I don't like the fact that 1 have some liability for some child who gets hurt in there when they are not even paying any kind of homeowners association dues to use that. Johnson: Are you taking a position and I don't mean to paint you in a corner here, but are you taking the position that you would like to see access to that park denied for anyone except those people living in Sunnybrook? Reierson: I guess I would say that, because we are the only ones paying money for that and we are told that we were required to have that park by the City, But it was for the use of the homeowners. Johnson: Any questions? Hepper: I have a question, did I hear that Sunnybrook Farms 1, 2, and 3 are the phases that are paying for that? Morse: (End of Tape) Right now Sunnybrook Farms has 5 phases and as of now 2, 3 and 4 are the only ones that are paying the yearly fee to maintain the park. Alidjani: Is it true that number 1 subdivision or a portion is in the park? Morse: The park was not there as of yet, but there is a grandfather clause in the association papers that says that because of the grandfather clause that one was deleted from having to join the homeowners association, but when phase 5 came, it was deleted also for reasons I don't know. But 2, 3 and 4 are the only ones that are paying the fees. We are liable if something happens in the park, we carry our insurance for it. Alidjani: I just wanted to have it on record that when phase 1 was put together the park didn't exist. Morse: Right, it was just platode in, Also, I wanted to state too that if there is a way of clearing this up maybe if the new development if they want to contribute some of the money to help maintain the park. It is a private park, it belongs to the association but we can't see having 2, 3 and 4 carry the burden all by ourselves with all the adjoing subdivisions. Shearer: How much are the yearly fees? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 29 Morse: They were S60 and last year we voted it in and dropped them to S55 because the homeowners were complaining that they were tired of paying them. Also it takes like 535,000 to 540,000 a year to maintain the park. Bill Carroll, 1778 North Monello, was sworn by the Attorney. Carroll: I live in Sunburst subdivision on the corner of Gem Stone and Monello. Gem Stone is a street that is stubbed off and my property is directly adjacent to this proposed subdivision. I guess my main concerns are the amount of traffic that is going to increase coming through Sunburst, we don't have a park. We are a new subdivision a couple years old is all. There is a lot of small children that live on Gem Stone on Monello, on Bing right as you come into Sunburst subdivision. I would kind of like to see Gem Stone left alone and not connected into anything. We like it just the way it is. There is also an irrigation ditch there, I don't know what they have in mind, I haven't seen a plat for it. The ditch has a bunch of trees on lit that has a pretty good ecosystem in the trees, there are raptures that live in the trees all summer, a family of hawks, some owls, squirrels and they are kind of nice to have around. If they have to and if they bring Gem Stone on through they are going to have to fill that ditch in, the it or something. Those trees are right on the ditch bank so probably have to tear those out. There is a lot of concern in the subdivision that I live in our association president is here and he would kind of like to speak to you gentlemen. He can have a few more particulars than I do, but I wanted to give my opinion on public record. The traffic is the big thing, I think. Johnson: Thank you, is your lot #13? Carroll: Yes I am lot #13. Johnson: Any questions? Anyone else? Sue Sheehan, 2541 West Chateau, was sworn by the Attorney. Sheehan: Well I am kind of ditto on all of the park stuff, I am in Sunnybrook Farms too. But I want to take just another step further. The traffic on Chateau right now, the park kind of dead ends that they are talking about opening that right up and that will go right in front of the park. We have a real speeding problem there. I've called before and I have asked fora "slow children at plat sign" and I don't know. There is one stop there and that is all there is coming up. The problem is we need a Johnson: Excuse me, could you just indicate who you called, that is kind of important. • :~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 30 Sheehan: I called the City Hall here. Johnson: You called the City. Sheehan: I have called a couple of times and requested please could we have a "slow children at play sign at Sunnybrook Farms Park. They had told me they might have an interest in taking that park over one time if it was more than 1 acre, if it is close to 3 acres and it is 3 acres. I do want that on public record, because I called Story Park, the man who is in charge of Story Park and he told me they might be interested in taking the Sunnybrook Farms park over and making it a public park. I don't know if we can pursue that or not. The other problem is that if the subdivision goes in like they are saying and they can't come off of Cherry Lane. The problem is in front of the park again, we don't have sign, a stop sign and now they are speeding terrible and it is a dead end. So, I don't know what they are going to do if you open it up. It really is going to be a problem. Then the other concern that I have is the schools. Why are there no proposals, I understand, is this true that the school is 5 years away. If they are going to put all those homes in to the left us they are putting homes in, phase 5, where are these kids going to go to school? So, 1 would really like to bring up the school issue, I think it is more of a problem. The traffic is bad yes, and I know the growth is bad but we have to have schools too. I ditto everything the said about the park and I think it is not fair for only 3 phases to be paying dues and I think we need to watch for our children in the park. I guess I am wanting it on public record that maybe we could give the park to the City. Alidjani: I have one question please, you mentioned something about there is no sign, there is no stop sign, could you be more specific about what location? Sheehan: Well, there is one stop sign over there and it is on Todd Street and faces Chateau and Chateau goes down. When they open it up it will clear through the next stop sign is clear down 4 blocks. Alidjani: So, there are 2 stop signs right now? Sheehan: Well, there is one on Todd. Alidjani: So, your concern is after they open Chateau to the next subdivision, is there going to be a sign or not? Sheehan: If they are going to open that up, then I think there should be at least a 3 way stop. And stop everyone at that park so they don't run over children. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 31 Alidjani: So your suggestion is for the future? Not at the moment. Sheehan: No, I think children, no that is if it is opened up, what I am suggesting right now is a slow children at play sign. Alidjani: {Inaudible) our Police Commissioner is somewhere in the room and he is hearing all of this. Sheehan: So if I want something done I should ask tonight. Johnson: I appreciate your comments, any questions? Anyone else? Ken Tetrault, 2830 W. Gem Stone, was sworn by the Attorney. Tetrault: The first concern of the homeowners of Sunburst was with the zoning of this tract, now I understand that the R-4 is consistent with the other zoning in the area. That is 4 homes per acre. Johnson: That is the maximum allowable. It usually comes out less than that. Tetrault: Then as Mr. Carroll mentioned most of the homeowners in Sunburst are concerned about the status of Gem Stone Drive on the east end of Sunburst Subdivision and that at the present time the street is dead ended and most of the residents of Sunburst would love to see it remain that way. I don't know if anything can be done in as far as the City goes to accomplish this or is something would have to be done through Ada County Highway District. The next thing is another thing that Mr. Carroll mentioned and that is regarding the irrigation ditch. As he said there are several trees that are right down on the irrigation ditch and there are many different sorts of wildlife that live in these trees and the trees in the surrounding area. If these trees are removed there is a good chance that the family of squirrels and hawks that live in the area every summer would leave and not come back. And so will the other birds and squirrels would not find it that inviting an area anymore. 1 also do have one other question that maybe doesn't pertain to this, but some of our homeowners mentioned that they heard at a previous meeting with the city something about the city or irrigation district taking control of wells in subdivisions. I was wondering if I could get some clarification on that. Johnson: Anything else? Tetrault: That is all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 32 Johnson: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Charlene Miller, 3740 Quaker Ridge, was sworn by the Attorney. Miller: I just wanted to let you know my concern as far as the subdivisions going and the one that is mentioned at this point because I live in Cherry Lane subdivision. As far as the overload it is going to be on Linder and Meridian Middle and Meridian High and the other ones that have been mentioned prior. The schools, the parks and 1 just want you to know my concerns and I want the developers to know my concerns and partly as a community too. And we need to ask ourselves what is it going to do to better our community by not having adequate schools and parks and just an area where we want our families to live and grow up. Johnson: Thank you, next there was another hand way in the back. Melody Lowe, West Gem Stone Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Lowe: Well, I live on Gem Stone and I bought the original farm house when it was a farm. I am the one that lives along the ditch and has the trees there. I don't want to see the road go through especially if there is no entrance to the subdivision. That is a lot of undue stress cause on our children. Right now people are pretty free to be able to play, if we want to toss a football down the road we can do it all through there. If you open that up it will all change. The ditch, if you take the trees down we have osprey, all of you are welcome to come and look at the wildlife that lives there, there are all kinds of nesting. There are eagles, hawks, turtledoves, squirrels, and there is even an owl. And as far as the schools, Linder already has 2 trailers and with all of these subdivisions where are you going to put all of these kids. I hear that you ask that the subdivisions, the developers to provide space for this but they are not going to because that takes up the money that they are going to make. So, it needs to be demanded at some point that this is taken care of and soon. It is very hard on my son who has to go from the trailer into the school to go to the restroom. It is hard on the teacher and it is hard on all the students. Everything is interrupted, and not only that when he makes that trip from the trailer to the school who is out there making sure he is safe from the buildings. Because there is nobody out there unless it is recess. So, I think you need to consider that we don't want to keep just adding trailers to our schools but we need to build new ones. Thank you Johnson: Thank you Melody, anyone else? Scott Campbell, 1713 North Morello, was sworn by the Attomey. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 33 Campbell: I would like to re-state to show my extreme concern for the increase in traffic that is going to be brought through the Sunnybrook and Sunburst subdivisions if there is no entrance allowed to the subdivision. He state that there is going to be 87 lots I believe and that is 2 cars per house on average that is going to be using Sunburst and Sunnybrook as a through way into their subdivision and it would really cause a strain on the subdivisions, I believe. That is all. Johnson: Thank you, there was one other hand here. Jan de Weerd, 2090 W. Chateau, was sworn by the Attorney. de Weerd: My concern too, is one traffic load also on West Chateau, (inaudible) it is a residential street and not a main highway. We have been living here 2 years and have seen the increase. Traffic flow, (inaudible) are putting down there. Most highways are driveways are built at a slight angle and some more than others so every time kids are playing on the driveway the risk increases as more traffic is utilizing that road. It is used unfortunately as a highway, most people don't live on that street and they have to cross through Glentield Manor to get into their subdivisions. The traffic speed is too high and obviously a high concern currently for kids and do like to keep them all and see them grow up. Seeond concern is the school overload, several times mentioned here. I am very much aware that we need to facilitate as a City as a community growth that we are experiencing here. But, it shouldn't go on the cost of the level of living and freedom of people that live here currently. And creative solutions need to be found for that. And creative solution is to be ahead with your facilities. I am aware that the School board is responsible for increasing school facilities but you as a commission should be aware that your decision will impact the level of education that my kids and their future potential they will have by these decisions of adding subdivisions. Johnson: Thank you, next, anyone else? I will close the public hearing. Mr. Alidjani, you had questions for Gary Smith. Alidjani: Gary, 2 or 3 times they have brought up a point if Gem Stone gets connected to this new proposal that the ditch has to be tiled, trees have to be removed and squirrels are going to be put to death. Is that correct? Smith: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners, it is my understanding from our present City ordinance that all ditches are required to be tiled. The Council is making variances now and I understand that there is a re-write in the process to limit those tiling to ditches that have 48 inch or smaller tile. I guess whether or not the trees comes down would depend on where the trees are located. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7 2, 7 994 Page 34 Alidjani: Would this particular ditch be considered under or above 48 inches? Smith: I don't know. Alidjani: Bill do you have an answer? Bill: Probably greater than 48 inches, it is probably 5 foot wide at the bottom of the ditch. Alidjani: So, do we have a chance to save the wildlife? Smith: Again, it is the size of the ditch, it is probably an irrigation district ditch and we come under their jurisdiction. So, they would be involved in the process as well. Their, as you are aware, they are very cautious about development around ditches, especially ditches that size. The other question you had about the wells, the City has been in conversation for some time off and on with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District concerning on site pressurized irrigation systems as being a requirement of new subdivisions by the City of Meridian. And the fact that Nampa Meridian Irrigation would assume operation of those pressurized systems. I don't know what their attitudes are toward existing systems. The one in Sunburst Subdivision as 1 understand it is very well run and operates very well. They have a good source of water, it is a well. I don't have an answer on existing systems, how Nampa Meridian would look at those if they did become managers of pressurized irrigation systems. Johnson: Thanks Gary, any other questions? Hepper: I have a comment, whereas Sunnybrook Farms only has a single entrance to it, I don't know if this is the time to address this or when we get the preliminary plat, but I think the City should really encourage another entrance onto Cherry Lane. I don't think it is incumbent upon the other people and subdivisions to put up with the traffic. Johnson: 1 think we are somewhat ill prepared because we don't have ACRD comments. And we don't have a plat, but just looking at the sketch map we have, it is obvious that they don't want too many cuts in a close proximity of one another. And that is probably the concern at this point. We have a comment that they don't want it there, we haven't actually seen any comments. And perhaps they are offering some other alternative, I don't know. Hepper: And I realize that. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 35 Johnson: Your point is taken well, it is just that the other cuts and we are talking a narrow entrance way. Hepper: And that is not a decision we make. I also think the park area back there, that is also not a decision that is up to us, but I think the City has got a real opportunity there to pick up some park land before it is all gone. And maybe make that park a little bit bigger and take over the control of it. It appears that the park is out on the fringes of the people that are paying for. And there are several subdivisions around there that are going to be using it unless you put up a fence and don't let people in there. Johnson: As you know the City is developing their posture right now on that, parks in general. Perhaps a merger with Western Ada Recreation District, so that is a matter of policy that is being determined right now. Hepper: I think maybe the developer could talk to the City about that and see if something could be worked out on that too. It may or may not be the type of thing they are attracted to because of size. My understanding, the smaller the park the bigger the headache from the City's perspective. Any other comments or discussion? What would you like to do on this application? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney and a second to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this annexation and zoning request for Robert Glenn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE MEADOWS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing on that application. Is there a representative that would like to address the Commission? Ron Walsh, 12002 Fiddler Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Walsh: I am here tonight representing 3 landowners that are requesting to have 23.3 acres annexed into the City of Meridian. I've got the staff comments and I want to say that we don't have any major objection to any of the comments. The City Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 36 Engineer has pointed out that the parcel bordered by the city of Meridian and that is on 2 sides, we touch it on 2 sides. But we are also completely surrounded by the City and we lie to the east so the City is to the west of us. It is serviced by sewer and water, all 3 parcels. We don't have a problem with amending the legal description to include (inaudible) center lines. The (inaudible) of the comments are acceptable to us, the one thing I wanted to go over was Shari's comments. Although we have requested annexation we are not horribly particular about the zoning. We haven't really requested the mixed PUD zone. Wayne Forrey and I have worked for months on this entire area and it was his idea to zone or to put into the Comprehensive Plan the Mixed PUD zone. We have under control about 50 acres, we see some different uses in there, but we feel that the conditional use process should take care of each one of those uses. Apparently, she has made mention here of a City park. I have talked to Wayne about the size of the parcel and the scope of what we want to do in there and told him that we didn't necessarily have a problem with dedicating some of our land to a park. There are a couple of landowners that do have the same zone and would be receptive to giving a portion of that park. We have had some dialogue, nothing in writing, but we envision about 5 acres, but it would be these people would contribute only a couple. And then a parcel that we have control of directly to the south would contribute 1 or 1 1 /2 and then one of our neighbors to the west would contribute some. So, at the planning process t assumed we would take care of that and there would be some trade offs and that seems fine. Her final paragraph there is a little confusing to me and I did speak with her briefly tonight. I would ask that we continue on, I know you have to have 2 public hearings before I can be annexed so I request that we continue on tonight and allow us to move ahead with this and this MPUD zoning that does not exist yet in your development ordinance. We can either address that as we push forward or we can amend our application to a zoning that you do have on the books. I don't want to see the landowners injured because there is a Comprehensive Plan that the City has agreed to put on there but does not have written in their development ordinance. I don't believe that she really want to see us get tabled tonight, so I would just request that we push ahead. Any questions? Johnson: Yes, I have a question, why didn't you apply for a zone that existed at the time of the application, my application says mixed use. Walsh: Well, the mixed use was basically just to make it easy for everyone because it is within your Comprehensive Plan. We have 50 acres there that spans from Fairview Avenue back to the new Pine Street extension. The reason we are even involved in these particular parcels is that we have been working with the City to bring my partners plant out and put it in the business section towards the back. We don't even know what we are going to do with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 37 Johnson: Yes, I am familiar with the property, that was my question. My question is there is a spot on the application that requires a zoning request that you haven't properly addressed. Walsh: Well, I suppose on this particular piece I would have to say of your existing zones, I'd take R-15. Johnson: All we can work with are the existing zones. Walsh: Well, we really didn't want to request a particular zone because we didn't want to cast a light on the landowners that would cause them to slow the process down. We want to fit within your guidelines and we thought that if you just had the Comp Plan revised 3 or 4 months ago and had a mixed PUD zone or Comp layed over it that that would be the easiest way to do it that was our mistake. Johnson: Thank you, are there any questions the Commissioners would like to ask? None, this is a public hearing, would anyone like to come forward at this time. I will close the public hearing. What would you gentleman like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table this item until we hear from the applicant specifically what the zoning request is before we consider annexation. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until we get further clarification on the type of zoning requested, all those in favor? Crookston: You need to table it until a certain date. Rountree: The next regularly scheduled meeting Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table until May 10th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: If there is a representative for Rock Creek would you please come forward Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 38 at this time and address the Commission. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Merkle: I am here this evening on behalf of Kevin Howell Construction the applicant. This application consists of a 6 acre annexation with R-8 zoning and a 20 lot single family preliminary plat on approximately 5.7 of those acres. That comes out to about 3.5 lots per acre. When 1 got the packet yesterday I didn't see ACHD's comments in it, but I do have a copy of them. 1 would like to give them to you. In the back of that there is a vicinity map, you can kind of see what the surrounding area is. We are located directly west of the Finch Creek subdivision which was a preliminary plat approved by the Council in an R-8 zone, and further to the east of us is the Howell Tract subdivision which is already platted. We are about 3/8 of a mile west of Locust Grove along Ustick. The surrounding property to the east of us and the south is existing within the Meridian City limits with an R-8 single family zoning. The applicant is proposing lot sizes within Rock Creek subdivision of an average of around 9,000 square feet, minimum home sizes are proposed to be 1350 square toot minimum. Which is consistent with his Howell Tract subdivision. Access to the subdivision will be from Finch Creek to the east and then we have provided a future stub to the 15 acre parcel that is right now vacant to the west. We are not proposing access to Ustick due to the proximity to the entrance at Howell Tract and the entrance that will be required on that parcel to the west of us. In our meetings with ACRD and the tech review and those comments, basically they have agreed that they don't want another access out to Ustick from this property due to the other 2 to 3 accesses that are going to be onto Ustick within the vicinity. The streets within the subdivision will be built to the Highway District's standards with 50 foot of right of way, 36 streets and 5 foot sidewalks for the City of Meridian. The sewer and water can be provided to the subdivision through the Finch Creek Subdivision, when it is constructed. I would like to address Gary Smith's comments regarding the subdivision. Item #1 is correct, we agree with that, we will annex to the centerline of Ustick. His comments 2 and 3 we will provide that information to him with no problem. Item 4, the dimension in the legal description the annexation is correct, we had an error on the map and I have corrected it on that particular map, but the one in the legal description is correct and it matches the Finch Creek boundary. His item 5, regarding our culdesac in the one entrance, our culdesac is not in excess of 450 feet from that intersection, however we do understand that when Finch Creek to the east of us is constructed we will only have one access in, but that is just a function of we don't have the second access out to Ustick because ACHD doesn't want it. And we don't either, but we do have the access to the west, which when that develops we will have to plenty of access to the subdivision. Item 6 and 7 of Gary's comments, we will comply with those issues. Item 8, prior to the final design we will establish what the high groundwater • Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 39 is and the area when we do our drainage design to accommodate that. And number 9, we agree with this item also. Regarding the Planning and Zoning Administrators comments, 1 have addressed the South Slough, well I guess I haven't addressed the South Slough. The blue part on the bottom of the map is the relocated what Nampa Meridian calls the Finch Lateral and what everybody calls the South Slough, from Locust Grove all the way to the southwest comer of this subdivision about 1600 feet or so. It is not actually within the boundary of this annexation or subdivision. The applicant when he did Howell Tract did participate in the relocation and then the provision for the 15 foot pathway on the south side of that that the City is proposing. Regarding her comment about the pedestrian pathway to existing or adjacent subdivisions, I believe that our street and sidewalk locations east and west out of our subdivision are going to provide adequate pedestrian circulation in and out of this particular subdivision. And then in conclusion I would request that you approve this annexation and preliminary plat, if you have any questions I would be happy to try and answer them. Johnson: I just have a question and I probably missed it when I was reading the ACRD comments, but it seems to me that the specifics you gave for the most part met R-4 zoning yet you are requesting R-8 are there some lot size problems are frontage? Merkle: Frontage, your R-4 requires 80 foot frontage and because the (inaudible) to the side we would have monster lots in there. We have some of them at 65 to 70 foot width and are 150 feet deep, we just don't feel we want to go with, we meet the R-4 density and lot sizes, it is just the frontage. And R-8 is in the surrounding vicinity. And we could I think in a development agreement you are going to require with the annexation we would not be in excess of the density we propose on that. Johnson: They would probably look like an R-4 for all practical purposes. Any questions of Mr. Merkle? Hepper: What did you propose for minimum square footage? Merkle: 1350, which is consistent with the Howell Tract and Cougar Creek and Finch Creek. Johnson: No duplexes? Merkle: No duplexes. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Jim, this is a public hearing anyone else ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 40 like to address the Commission this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact, if that is your pleasure. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I so move. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION BY STEELE & SON AND GARY LEE/ J-U-B ENGINEERS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative by the name of Mr. Gary Lee will you please the Commission at this time. Gary Lee, 1750 Summertree, Meridian was sworn by the Attorney. Lee: The application before you this evening is a public hearing for annexation of what is know as the Cairn's property. And the preliminary which we have identified as Turtle Creek Subdivision. The property is situated on Linder road about a 1 /4 mile south of Ustick. It is approximately 76 acres in size, currently it is zoned RT in the county. It is surrounded by City limits on all boundaries. There is an existing subdivision to the south called Glennfield Manor, an existing subdivision to the east and there is also an existing subdivision to the west called Sunnybrook Farms and a new one to the north called Tumble Creek. This particular project was homesteaded by the Caim's and was originally an 80 acre parcel. However in the southeast corner, there is a 5 acre parcel that was excluded that was recently sold to the Slagle's. And in addition the Cairn's own a new house adjacent to the entry road of about 3 acres in size and that they are going to retain as their home and residence. The properties adjacent to the Turtle Creek are currently zoned R-8. And to the east and west and the south, this particular project we are requesting an R-4 zoning. The site will provide access via a collector street coming off of Linder Road known as Redstone, it will stand from Linder into the project about 3/8 of a mile. From that street there will be local street stemming off from it, all of course constructed to ACRD standards. There will be access points to adjacent subdivisions as well. There are 2 points to the south on Monaco and Cubic. There is one proposed Tumble Creek subdivision of Stubblefields to the north. And there is an additional one that we are planning to the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 41 west. Currently there is a traffic study being completed, I spoke to the traffic engineer this morning doing that study for us and it is being submitted tomorrow to ACRD for approval. I stated before there are 245 lots on the project, that equates to about 3.2 lots per acre, it is fairly low on density. All the lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet with 80 foot of street frontage. There are existing sewer and water facilities available which will be extended through the project. And as I mentioned before all the streets will be public. (End of Tape) The proposal that we have for the subdivision includes a meandering walkway along Linder Road in the area adjacent to the development. This meandering walkway and landscaped buffer will extend into the project along the main collector highway. We have allowed for an additional 10 feet beyond the 9 feet available on the public right of way for landscaping and the sidewalk. In addition to that there will be some berming accomplished along Linder Road for sound and buffering from the traffic on Linder. There will be a homeowners association formed to maintain all the common areas on the subdivision including that meandering entryway. I would like to address some of the comments in the staff report, starting with the City Engineer. Item #1, he questions the exclusion of the 5 acre parcel at the southeast corner, as stated previously that is under separate ownership and not in control of either the Cairn's or the developer on this project. However, this subdivision has been designed and laced out in such a way that the 5 acres could develop in time into residential lots as well. And we have provided an access point into this development for that purpose. Johnson: Did you have any discussion with the owner? Lee: We spoke with the Slagle's about the development and answered some questions about some of the issues, drainage and irrigation mainly. Item #2 on Gary's comments is the FEMA flood zone designation zone X in the northeast quadrant of the development. We are aware of that particular designation and we will be accommodating the requirements for FEMA and that will raise all the house elevations and minimum 1 foot above all surrounding grades just out of the flood area. Number 3 is a request for a temporary tum around on the east end of Lonesome Dove Street and that will be a requirement by ACHD because of its length and will be provided. Number 4, there are some questions about the minimum lot frontages, I laid a scale on the plat on some of the ones that weren't dimensioned and they do have 80 feet minimums and when we get to the final plat stage we will be sure that those are all met. Item #5, there is a question about the maximum 1,000 foot block length, there area number of blocks each sited in his note. I believe that can be accommodated fairly simply by installing a connector street and breaking the longer blocks up. There is one, if you have the map in front of you. In this area between Redstone and Whitebird, it is about 1,100 feet. It is approximately 1,100 feet from point to point. We would extend this street up and break that block in 2. There is Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 42 some question about these lots in this area, but I guess I am not real sure what his feelings are about that. Ivied to arrange some time, I know Gary is busy and wasn't able to get it done, about discussing how we could break this up as well but we have the idea of maybe putting a connector here to shorten up some of the block. (Inaudible}. Johnson: You will still be able to meet the minimum lot size with that connector there? Lee: Yes, we will, there will probably have to be some (inaudible) of lots around, but you would end up losing probably lots for 2 blocks by doing that but that is a requirement and that is what we will do. Item #6, sewer service ability, we are coordinating that with the engineers to the north with the Stubblefield property, they are extending a 10 inch line from Ustick Road south to our connecting stub road. Which will service a large portion of this development as well as servicing the 8 acres that is accepted out in the southwest corner. There is a small portion in the southwest comer that isn't serviced by that line because of the depth requirements, we are going to have to extend it to the west into Sunnybrook Farms which will work as well. Item #7 he has questioned the filling of the drain ditch that traverses through the project. We will be filling that ditch and compacting and monitoring the compaction as it goes in to make sure it will support future homes and foundations. We spoke with Settlers Irrigation District on item #8 about piping the Settlers canal. And that will be accommodated as well. Johnson: Are they in favor of that? Lee: Yes, they have no concerns about that. Item #9 again is a sewer stub to the east end of Lonesome Dove going into the out parcel and there is adequate depth there to serve that property as well. Item #10, there is a delivery ditch a user ditch that traverses the southwest portion of the property that will have to be tiled as well. And we will be coordinating with the downstream users. Item #11 is a question about pressurized irrigation systems, at this point in time the developers feeling is that we will comply with the City's well development fee ordinance and pay the fee in lieu of pressurized irrigation. Item #12, we concur with the analysis for the water system and we will provide the City Engineer with whatever information he needs. And item #13, the seasonal high groundwater will be evaluated this summer and proper steps taken to accommodate the groundwater. And the Planning Director's comments, from Shari Stiles. I spoke to Shari a little bit today, I got these comments today, so we were a little bit behind on our discussion but we did have a chance to spend a few moments on the phone. Item #1, west boundary collector roadway. As you are aware there is development occurring now to the north and to the west. And of Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 43 course all the development south is complete there is no place there that we could extend a collector road through. And after my discussions with the traffic engineer it was evident from a traffic circulation point of view, what we have there is adequate and will service the property. Item #2, access to Tully park which is directly to the east of the development, again the meandering sidewalks, the intent of that was to use that thoroughfare and get them over to that area and be able to get to the park. There may be a need for some crosswalks there on Linder Road to accommodate the pedestrians. Item #3, the suggestion was made to bring our collector street into Clear Street, I don't know if you have the vicinity map in front of you, but it is about 100 feet south of the northeast corner. We looked at that alternative at one time and found that in order to bring a collector street in there we would be losing the use of all of the land north of it because of access restrictions. So, we opted to move as far south as we could get it to get the maximum off set on that street and that was the main reason we didn't line up with Clear. Item #4, on the rural residential and adequate buffering, at first I didn't really understand the comment until I talked to her on the phone, but of course on the south side and west side and north side it is all residential now, it is either R-8 or R-4 and the area that she was concerned with was the 8 acres in the southeast corner that we are accepting out of the 80. And there is some buffering there in the way of pasture lands and some out buildings and obviously some day down the road it may not be in the next few years that will develop and this will lend itself for that to happen. So, we believe we have addressed the transition concerns. And the last item that Shari had was the pedestrian pathways between the culdesacs, and I concur with her comments I think that is probably a good idea and we would like to incorporate those in the culdesacs that we have to allow pedestrian traffic to flow through the property and probably towards Linder school. Johnson: Were you able to come up with copies of ACHD comments for us? Lee: No I haven't, they are waiting on our traffic study. Johnson: We haven't heard from them either. Lee: That is all the comments I have, if there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. Johnson: Any questions of Gary Lee the engineer? Alidjani: t do Gary, regarding the comment that Shari has made, number 4. In my mind I guess it never did get settled. She mentioned about 4 sides you mentioned 3 sides are already subdivisions, the 4th side you never did say what you are going to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 44 do with that. You just said in a few years it was going to get developed, that is true, but at this time you didn't come with a solution or anything, a berm. Lee: Well, not along the, the side we are looking at, actually 2 sides. The parcel happens to have a home right in here, the Slagle's have a home right down here which is the old original (inaudible). We have allowed for an extra wide landscaping buffer along the north edge here about 30 feet. Of course we are working with the Cairn's who developed some of that berming in front of their home. Along here there will be some pasture along that land that they are now using and will retain. We believe that the critical development here would say that eventually this is going to develop into a similar type subdivision. And we like to see this type of configuration remain as it is. Alidjani: So, at this time you don't have any solution, it is just going to stay the way it is. Johnson: Okay, Gary thank you, any other questions? Rountree: Gary, on Linder Road, I don't have a dimension on the lot as far as the whole back (inaudible) from centerline. Lee: It is 45 feet from centerline. Rountree: Now, is that to the 10 foot lot 1 and that is an additional 10 feet? Lee: Yes Hepper: Do you know what the landscape easement is on Tumble Creek to the north? Lee: I don't remember exactly what he had in mind there. Hepper: It has been so long since we have seen I don't know what his easement was for along there for landscaping. Lee: I don't recall either. Hepper: 10 feet seems pretty narrow, but I don't know what the other subdivision to the north is going to be like. Lee: There should be some additional room in there because the back at curb and the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 45 10 feet, the section that more than likely they will choose in there it will be 65 feet so 32 1 /2 feet off the 45 would leave you about 12 feet of available space. So the 12 and the 10 is 22 and that is where we would put the meandering walkway and the landscaping, about 22 feet. And that holds true along Redstone our collector street, there would be 19 1 /2 feet in there. Rountree: There is 45 feet there and from centerline to point and 10 feet there. What he is saying is that atypical section would be approximately 33 feet in that 45 feet. So that leaves 12 feet from there to there. Hepper: (Inaudible) Rountree: Gary, Linder would be ultimately 5 lanes as well would it not. So there really isn't 12 feet in there, all section line roads at least in the Comp Plan ultimately establish for 5 lanes. Lee: That is 65 feet, half of 65 is 32 1 /2. I suspect in the case we will probably road trust for the improvements and let the impact fees pay for it and go ahead build a berm and a meandering sidewalk now. When Linder Road is improved they will do the whole thing. Hepper: So when they improve the road they would take out the meandering sidewalk? Lee: No, we will set it back far enough to accommodate the road widening when it does happen. Hepper: Homeowners association will take care of the landscaping? Lee: Yes, on Linder and Redstone. Hepper: What are you going to do for landscaping, are you going to have trees and shrubs, or is it just going to be grass. Lee: There will be some planning, some trees. Like I have said along Linder we would like to buffer that as much as we can so we would like to get some dense growth in there. Hepper: What about a fence? Lee: Well the concept right now is for a split rail fence to kind of blend in with Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 46 berming and there will probably be an undulated berm. It won't be a standard height from one end to the other. Hepper: Would you have a restriction that the homeowners couldn't build a solid fence adjacent to the split rail fence? Lee: Yes, I think that would be prudent. It would make it look homogeneous. Hepper: The developer either needs to provide solid fencing or make it such that the homeowners can't. Because otherwise you are going to end up with several different styles. Lee: That is right. Johnson: Any further questions? Thank you Gary, this is a public hearing anyone else from the audience? Ray Valenti, 2278 North Astaire, was sworn by the Attorney. Valenti: I live on Astaire just south of Chateau. Chateau at that area up there is a stop sign that basically stops the east bound traffic on Chateau and it looks very much like Lonesome Dove, if you turn it upside down. So, it is not a through street, it is not a straight street. With a subdivision of 245 lots going into the direct north you have the Robert Glenn proposal on the far west side, you are only allowing for one access onto Linder which is the through street. The Slagle's from what I can gather are probably are going to sell in the near future and that is probably not a viable alternative for a traffic escape from the subdivision. And I think that is going to force a majority of the traffic, approximately about a 1!3 of the homes about 80 homes to access the already overburdened Chateau. Chateau is not a through street, it is not a smooth street, it can't handle the traffic. Many other subdivisions are accessing that as we were talking in the previous testimonies we have one school and a private park which I just found out is was private about 1 /2 hour ago and an area surrounded basically blocked by Ustick on the north, Ten Mile on the west, Linder on the east, Cherry on the south which is going to be pretty much solid subdivision. With Chateau being the main street that is going to bring traffic in and out at least on the east side. Linder School is a very small school and you have to look for it to find it. It is not very well marked. I have been a police officer with Boise City for 17 years so I am very familiar with traffic plans and concerns of citizens when it comes to traffic which is one of the highest concerns we feel. I know also that Meridian has been doing some extra patrol and trying to slow down the people. It is not working though, people are seeing the schools, my kids walk along those streets as do many Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 47 of the other peoples kids walk along that street. There are only 2 main access to that school, one is on Sandlewood and one is on Chateau. I think with the increased traffic we are going to be asking for a tragedy and that is a kid getting hit. And we need to be concerned as a community what we are doing with that road and that school with these subdivisions. I don't oppose the plan, but we need to watch the traffic very closely. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Dory McVae, 1931 Trixie Court, was sworn by the Attorney. McVae: I echo Mr. Valenti's concerns. Living on the corner of Tracy Court and Monaco Way there are 245 new houses that probably a lot of those folks are going to have kids and I can see that a lot of those people are going to be taking their kids to school down Monaco Way right past my house. Currently, we do have a stop sign at Monaco Way and Chateau, I would like to see their be a 4 way stop at Monaco Way and Chateau and painted crosswalks added. Further, the five year school plan is not acceptable with 245 additional homes in addition to the other homes we talked about earlier tonight, Linder School is going to be way overburdened. We must have additional schools for these kids. Further, with the additional traffic on Chateau we have noticed that there has been total disregard for the school zone slow down what have you, I would like to see a yellow flashing light at the entrance to Linder Elementary School. We have had numerous notes come home from Linder School from the staff there asking people please slow down. It is not just the residents in there that have kids going to that school, it is residents that don't have children, it is residents that live in all of these other subdivisions. Chateau is not designed to be a major thorough fare and that is what we are making it by making all of this growth and causing all of these homes to use Chateau. There must be additional roads and entrances in order for these people to move around and to be able to move around safely. I do have one further comment, with the addition of Glenntield 2 and 3 and the other subdivisions we have noticed the water pressure is going down, I would like to make sure that any additional development have adequate water in their own. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Jeff Crowell, 2229 North Astaire Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Crowell: Some people have already spoken very clearly on our concerns, we are talking 245 homes in this develop, and Sunnybrook is an approximate number to my Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 48 understanding. Chateau is going to get all of this traffic, I would like to borrow your plat here. What we have got, the only real access here is Redstone, I submit that a large fraction of these people are going to jump down and use Chateau. Intersection of Chateau and Astaire looks like this and there are already people who are irritated enough with the traffic situation, the guy who lives at that intersection will tell you they drive straight across his yard. It doesn't happen a lot, but coming past his house you are going to see the tracks in his grass, he doesn't really like it. I don't like (inaudible). I have heard a number that approximately 90 new kids are expected at Linder as a result of this development, that strikes me as awfully low. There are an awful lot of young families in Glenwood Manor. I would guess 3 out of 5 homes on a stairway have school age children. And some of them have kids that are significantly younger than that, they kind of tend to not look when they cross the street. We are talking about putting a lot of traffic on these streets, at 245 homes these days it is a pretty fair guess that each home is going to have 2 cars. 490 cars coming out of this one, and Sunnybrook and the extensive subdivision developments that are further back in that all use Chateau. Sandalwood is not a real valid alternative because it doesn't continue on through. Certainly this group doesn't have all that much to do with the schools, but I submit that the schools have to follow the lead (inaudible) by the developers. Certainly if the homes are there they are going to ask for the schools and they are always behind. I understand that today there was a student registered which put them at rated capacity including their modular classrooms. So, something has to happen, Chateau is not adequate for the traffic and the school is not going to be adequate for the kids. I also was surprised to find out today that the small park on Chateau is private, certainly my kids use it and the others do too. And even if the proposed park goes across from Linder, if there are no strings attached as for when that is going to happen that is problematic when that will go in. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you. Beveraly McKay, 2381 Monaco Way, was sworn by the Attorney. McKay: I live on Monaco Way which is, I live in the house which is adjacent to this new subdivision. I am very concerned about the amount of traffic that is going to be on this street. We don't have a lot now but we can see this will be a main artery in and out of the subdivision. With only one way in and out on Linder, there is not much other way for them to get out. My house has a steep incline on the driveway, several of my neighbors also do, we have a real slanted driveway, so we tend to come down off the drive way a little faster than normal people because it is slanted like that. Additional traffic, I can see where we are going to get a few more problems. I imagine with these new houses they are also going to be on that incline Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 49 too. Because the ditch is sitting right next to my property, it is in the back of my property and I don't see where they are going to level that anywhere. Also I am really concerned about the school, everybody else has mentioned it but we have 279 houses going in at Tumble Creek and you are going to add 245 more in Turtle Creek, that school is maxed out right now, there are a lot of kids in that school. I moved my kids to Pioneer last year to help elevate the problem, it didn't do any good I ended up moving back anyway. It is not fair to those of us who have been there for a long time. I have been there 13 years, 3 bond issues now for schools, this is getting a little ridicutous here. A couple of weeks ago I had my windshield shot out with a bebe gun, we have had an increase in crime with all of these kids, several of us in the neighborhood have had our windows shot out, kids have beat up on our cars and it is not fair to us. It is not fair until you guys do something about what the City is going to do about the Police force and all of these things, I am the one paying for the damages to my property and nobody is there to monitor it for me. The same goes if they don't cover up the irrigation ditch, right now I am liable for that irrigation ditch and if some kid falls in it is my responsibility to pay. I take care of it now and I hope somebody will take care of it in the future because that is a very !inaudible) irrigation ditch. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you Cory Sweng, 2415 West Ustick, was sworn by the Attorney. Sweng: We are located in a house on the northwest side may I show you. I find it interesting that the developers have failed to mention that we do live on this 2 acre parcel right here. They mentioned everything to the west is R-4 or R-8 and that is not true we are a section that is not. Johnson: You are still in the County there RT? Sweng: We are still in the county I believe it is RT. We have a few concerns personally as well as a community member, but we would expect the same buffering along this area that the Slagle's receive in this area. And our property is similar to theirs in some ways. (Inaudible) The other thing we have we have an irrigation ditch of course right down this area which we have been contacted and know what our rights are going to be as far as irrigation. Johnson: I am a little bit confused, are we talking about a single landowner there? Sweng: Right Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 50 Johnson: How many acres? Sweng: 2 acres in that upper corner, from here to there. We access off of Ustick. It is about a 1(4 mile, but we will be accessing through Fieldstone eventually when they get that built. The thing I find interesting tonight, I haven't lived in Meridian that long about 8 months but being developers ourselves we understand what developers are trying to do because we plan on developing ourselves. But the thing that is interesting to me in Meridian is I don't really know too much about your Comprehensive Plan but it doesn't seem to be very much. Johnson: We have a revised Comp Plan that is in its final stages of approval. It actually has been revised several times and redrafted so it hasn't been adopted in an ordinance yet. Sweng: The thing that concerns me as a community member is that if you look tonight just at the subdivisions that have been mentioned here there are over 700 homes, close? If you look at that Comprehensive Plan or community plan, 1 there is no infrastructure to handle that many homes in the next year to 2 years I don't see it. There is no school structure, infrastructure, road structure. I don't know what your utility structure has been but it can't be something. Johnson: (Inaudible) but you are right about the roads and schools which are other jurisdictions. Sweng: But I would think in your Comprehensive Plan you would make your developers set aside certain amounts of land for schools, for parks, recreational uses. If you look at this project alone, there 245 homes, I think ACRD will say a minimum of 5 trips per house per day. That is about 1200 trips a day out of that subdivision onto Linder. And that is fine when it is a 5 lane road, but a 2 lane I'm not really sure how that is going to work. I would be surprised if ACHD's comments are any different. We just completed a traffic study ourselves on our project and they estimated 7 trips day. If you also look at Fieldstone, they are about 300 homes, so there is another 1500. The one to the north of this project, Tumble Creek, there are about 400 homes there. I understand what your jurisdictions are, we have ACHD, Community health, etc. I guess by concern as a member of the community is that we don't have any structure any planning to take on anymore developments of this size right now and that is what concerns me. I just don't see it. The other thing that is interesting there is a radio tower there that is owned by Cellular One and I don't know, no one has contacted me. My understanding FCC rules you need 750 feet from the tower each way. Now has that been addressed, they have a 15 year lease left. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 51 Johnson: I haven't heard anything regarding that. I don't know if the engineer has addressed that or not. We can ask him when we are through. Sweng: That would be a legal issue as far as that goes, have you guys talked to Cellular One. Johnson: Anyway we can address that with them, !appreciate your bringing it up. Sweng: Well, my concerns are just the schools and that has been reiterated again and again and I don't have a problem with that. We would expect the same buffer in our area we are definitely not an r-4 or R-8 zone. We also would expect to know about the irrigation rights that we are going to have and how that is going to be handled at our property. And of course just the traffic issues, anyway those are my comments. Johnson: We appreciate them, thank you. Jan DeWeerd, 2990 West Chateau, was sworn by the Attorney. DeWeerd: I want to take the comments a little further actually and I do strongly oppose the approval of this project. Two reasons for that, the first one is actually here you as a Commission really have an opportunity to elevate the standard of living in Meridian by actually keeping that space open. Open space the (inaudible) of the urban areas, it is currently a city of I guess 19,000. But we have an ambitious plan to move to 50,000 by the year 2000. Green areas, open space will be very critical and highly appreciated by the people that live there and then people will commend the people who had a vision 20 years ago to make those decisions. Maybe only as little as 10 we will have solid urban residential area from the freeway to Chinden and open space would be desired. And here we are talking about an area that is actually uniquely fit for that. We are already starting park developments to the east, that is actually where you start to develop somewhat of a green belt area and there are unique opportunities to stretch that further. There is a farm lot of 5 acres currently which will be open space. We could easily with this type of development bring a (inaudible) to Sunnybrook. A unique opportunity for that, there is a creek to the south of that, probably where the name is being derived from which is currently bringing a lot of wildlife in and there is a lot of activity and probably will stay if the open space stays here. Again if we talk (inaudible) of living quality this will provide you as a Commission an opportunity to make a difference here in Meridian. In addition to facilities and growth which is a very important key. The second point is again of course the traffic, the strain on the infrastructure, overload of the school structure. I do understand that you cannot make decisions on where those schools Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 52 will go and what their capacity is, but we are reaching a point here on already approvals that you have made here today that you already as a Commission foresee major problems. Maybe it is time we say time out and let's talk to those entity's that do have the proper power on making decisions on that to discuss that. And then come back and continue your approvals or changes on plans. I think, I'm not sure that you can make that kind of decision to wait until you have ideas about the infrastructure for the next 20 years. I have a question for the developer, if you do go ahead with this project, that is the lots on the south side of the development, 1 am not sure what the minimum requirements are of the lots, are those 8,000 feet as well. The irrigation ditch wilt be tiled as I understand it, is that property that goes to the lots will be developed on that side, or is that open space? If I look at the length they are 80 feet wide by 100 feet which is a 1,000 but as I read the map well that takes some consideration of the irrigation ditch. Is that going to stay as such or is that irrigation ditch (inaudible) could be as much a 5 to 10 feet. Those lots there do not meet the minimum requirement of 8,000 feet. That is a detail concern but I want to reiterate my point, this is a unique opportunity for you as a Commission to give Meridian a different face. I would like to have that considered. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Diana Brunello, 2257 North Astaire, was sworn by the Attorney. Brunello: I have the same concerns of everyone else here has, mainly the impact it is going to have on the school. Linder Elementary this morning registered its 604th student, the school was originally designed for 570 some odd number. With the 2 potables that we currently have and are using to full capacity it will handle 604. It has added 10 students since Easter, it has nothing to do with the proposed subdivisions that we are discussing here tonight. The Council has to take into consideration, it may not be your responsibility to assess he impact on the schools but with the number of houses that we are talking about, you have to allow the Meridian board of education to at least keep pace with it. There was an article in this mornings Statesman about Chiet Joseph which is just down the street to the east. There are 9 subdivisions going in now that are in the neighborhood of Chief Joseph Elementary. The children will not be going to the neighborhood school they will be bussed out to other schools within the School district. Linder was also mentioned in that article as one that they may propose doing that to or going to year round schools which ever is going to be best. They are already running at capacity, most of the schools in the district things like this have to be taken into consideration before they are approved not after and then deal with it with bond issues. There has got to be a catch up point somewhere. Also the traffic on Chateau, currently the speed the drivers go down that street is not acceptable, there is a stop sign at Chateau and Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 53 North Astaire which is I believe the new street is Cubic, it is to the west of that. One out of 5 cars stops at that stop sign, that have an officer that sits in front of my house and watch, they have not been able to do anything to control the speed as of this point. Those are my 2 main concerns, increased traffic and the speed, impact that it is going to have on the students that live in the neighborhood. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Tammy DeWeerd, 2090 West Chateau, was sworn by the Attorney. DeWeerd: My concern of course is dealing with what my husband had to say. My major concem is also preserving my 4 children and the traffic that is going to be put through Chateau with the proposals that have been introduced here tonight, one of the access roads that is going into Sunnybrook Farms which only goes onto Chateau anyway. So, I don't see that as any viable out of the subdivision. And his comment about losing a couple of lots to make another artery into the subdivision above was quite interesting. And looking at a perspective from a developer and not from someone who is trying to find traffic solutions. But, right now traffic on Chateau is very fast and rapid, this Chateau is one of the main walkways to Linder Elementary school, right now I would like to see that a traffic study is done, if this subdivision is going to be considered by whoever needs to do that. I'm quite surprised that the study hasn't been done for this subdivision how it effects on Linder either. There should also be a stop sign put at Glenfiled and Chateau which would also help slow things down as well as crosswalks. I think that is the only new thing that I can add to the conversation. I was a little bit setback that the disregard you have for wildlife and how you can just let some of these nice things that we have in our backyards fly away. Sometime if development continues at the rate it has been (End of Tape) Blue Herons, Hawks and geese and all kinds of wildlife and the fox, and I guess you can pick the fox up and move him somewhere. Those are my comments. Thank you. Johnson: I don't know where you got the impression on the disregard for wildlife, there are just a lot of things we don't have any control over. Most of the foliage along irrigation ditches are a result of irrigation district companies not doing their maintenance. And they will admit to that and therefore the animals have taken over that area, but they have full jurisdiction on what happens there and that is why you see trees occasionally uprooted and cut down. And that is not a request, even with the cooperation of the City it is just that it is their jurisdiction That is the way they maintain their ditches. We understand a little bit about our environment and preservation of wetlands and that sort of thing. Shirley Slagle, 2415 North Linder Road, was sworn by the Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 54 Slagle: Well, my concerns are about the school also, like everyone else. But other than that 1 wasn't clear on what they were putting down Linder Road from the entrance way up to Chateau. Are you going to put a sidewalk there? Johnson: You have to address your questions to us and then we will have him rebut. Slagle: Well, I am wondering what they are going to put in their entrance way from this subdivision up to along Linder up to Chateau. That would be right in front of my place and Mrs. Cairn's. There is no sidewalk or anything now and with all the kids coming around to either or to either come out of Chateau and go down and cross over to the park and even from the other subdivision walking up the road there is a need for a sidewalk along Linder. My other concern was the fencing along the back of the property. Were they going to put that in so they would all be the same back there also? Johnson: Anything else? Slagle: No, that is all thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Paul Jahner, 2351 Monaco Way, was sworn by the Attorney Jahner: I am of course concerned with the school, I have a first grader over there and another boy. It was mentioned that Linder is not adequate, there was something stated about some future time they would widen it. But this subdivision goes in, people on the central and the lower part of this are going to be going down Monaco Way right in front of my house. And I think even the traffic going down Cubic and that is going to end up intersecting right there at Chateau and Monaco Way. I echo what Dory said that a four way stop should be put in there. We should address the concerns about the schools. Johnson: Thank you. Kathy Reirerson, 2043 Kristen Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Reierson: I have some real concerns, I understand you don't have the jurisdiction as far as the highways and the schools and that sort of thing, but it strikes me as really strange that we worry more about satisfying the needs of the developers and their pockets and that sort of thing and worry about the roads later. As you have heard from all the people that are in surrounding subdivisions we are really concerned about Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 55 the traffic situation and how that is going to affect our children who are all in walking subdivisions to the schools and we have heard testimony that there is going to be a 5 lane highway on Linder and on Ten Mile to help alleviate some of the problems that we see with all of these houses that we have heard. That are in the process of being approved, but I don't hear anything about dates tied to when these things are going to happen. It strikes me as a bit strange that we have this cart before the horse attitude of putting all of these houses in and we are going to worry about the highways and schools later. Most of you gentleman probably are of an age where you children are past the elementary ages and are probably not as concerned. I would hope you would think about the future for some of us who have smaller children and are extremely concerned about their education. Most of us are in families where both families have to work if there are indeed 2 people in the household who can work and bring home a living. And most of us can't afford to send our children to private schools. And even if we did we would still have to pay taxes for schools to accommodate all of these housing permits. I would like to find out if there is some way we can put some impact fees on some of these newer housing developments that are going in so some of us who moved here years ago to be out of the dense population in Boise and to be able to enjoy a little more freedom, a little bit better education opportunities for our children so that we will not be burdened with additional very high taxes that some of these developers will have to do some of this. It seems like there are too many things that are not taken into consideration up front that the developers should have to pay for or include in the prices of the houses of these people that are coming into these areas. I know from personal experience of being in Sunnybrook Subdivision I have lived in this subdivision for 11 years and at that the time that I moved in there was no demand on the person who was the developer at that time to even fence the canal. So all of the people that live adjacent to the canals have had to pay themselves to put fencing up there and plus when we had to fence in for the park of the people that are in 2, 3 and 4 portions of the subdivision had to pay through their homeowners association for the fencing of that. Those kinds of things, I think it is imperative that we talk to these developers and require them. We all know that they are the ones getting big bucks out of this and it is the rest of us who are having to pay for the schools and all of that. I am sorry that this is really humorous to you Mr. Alidjani, you know but these are things that we are all concerned with. Johnson: I have a question, did you have a discussion with the Legislature about Impact fees? Riererson: No Johnson: Have you ever talked to the School District about planning ahead? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 56 Riererson: I have been involved with some of it. Johnson: Have you sat in on some of their meetings of the School board and asked why they haven't planned, why aren't schools ready for the growth that we all knew was coming. Riererson: I have been involved with some if it yes. Johnson: Thank you Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to make some comments. Ladies and gentlemen I have lived here like you guys for 15 years, I have been here as long as you have and some of you longer. I do have 2 kids in Meridian School District, my daughter age of 13 she sits on the floor at Middle School and some times she doesn't finish her breakfast, we do have a concern we feel for you. But when you say we are here to satisfy the developer I don't know who is we. If you are we are not, let's clarify a few items I would like to do that. You said cart before the horse, let's tomorrow pass that bond issue for $6 million for the schools we don't need, see how many of you will vote for that. Was the chicken first or the egg first, who is going to tell who is going to spend the money. And is it our money or the School districts money, one way or another sometimes it is going to be all votes. So, don't come out here and point your finger at us that we are not doing our job, we are not concerned and all we are trying to do is put lots of money in the developers pockets and send him on his road. That is not true. Shearer: I think another thing needs to be addressed also, is the road situation. ACHD has impact fees, this subdivision will pay impact fees that will be used on Linder Road. Without the subdivision those impact tees would not be paid on Linder Road. We are not going to get Linder Road upgraded until we have people out there that are going to pay these impact tees and need the road. So that is kind of the way our country works, when the need is there then the product is there. There will be a lot of impact fees off of this to pay for widening and so on of Linder Road. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time. I will close the public hearing. We will take a 5 minute break. FIVE MINUTE RECESS Johnson: Excuse me, can I have your attention please, we are going to reopen this public hearing and give Gary Lee an opportunity to rebut some of the remarks which Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 57 I said 1 would do. Lee: 1 took notes during the testimony of the people in the audience and certainly appreciate them coming out tonight and giving their feelings about the project. I wrote down some of the items that kept coming up during the presentations. The first one on the list is the schools. As most of you and the Commissioner are aware 1 live in Meridian and I have 3 schools in the Meridian school district, 2 of them go to Linder and 1 of them goes to the High School. And I voted and participated in passing the 2 previous bond issues since the short time I have been here. And paying our fair share as we go along, and of course as these projects develop these people come on board, new houses are built, they are going to be assessed the same property tax evaluation I am. They will be paying bond issues that were passed years ago, and new ones I hope. The builder/ contractor association which we are a member is very active in school situations and attempting to participate in and supporting the bond issues. They have supported real estate transfer fees. They have supported and helped prepare legislation for impact fees, they were instrumental in the impact fee legislation that was passed a couple of years ago. And we are doing things about schools, as you of course are aware there has been a considerable amount of work done on the Comprehensive Plan of late. School sites have been designated and we are working towards that goal to acquire those sites. I for one will support the City of Meridian and all their endeavors in acquiring those. The traffic issues, these subdivisions are designed in such a way that we attempt to carry the main traffic flow from within the development out to the collecting arterial streets, in this case Linder Road. And that is the purpose of the Redstone Drive that is going into the development. And it proceeds from the east side westerly to about the center of the development as a collector street status and what that means is there is no access allowed on that street with the exception of local coming into it. So, it is designed to cant' traffic and it moves quicker, it is safer and that is where most of the traffic is going to go. And that is the purpose of the collector and these developments. The stub streets that you see along the perimeter of the developments are designed for inter-neighborhood movement, going to schools, going to see your neighbors. If you didn't have those you would have to go out on Linder Road, travel around Linder or Cherry Lane, whatever it takes to get back to Linder School or your neighbors house. So that is the purpose of the stub streets and those are designed in such a way to discourage movement through those subdivisions in other to get to Linder. And the impact fee was discussed briefly, there will be approximately a half million dollars generated from this development on impact fees that will go towards the improvement of Linder Road. And of course the Ada County Highway District will be the one to decide when that happens and it will be based on traffic impact. Irrigation issues came up a couple of times, as mentioned in my presentation we will be tiling the 2 irrigation ditches in this project, one is a Settlers Lateral which goes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 58 along the easterly boundary and a portion of the southerly boundary and down to Monaco. It will be covered and it will enhance the safety issue. It won't be that large intake structure that is there now on Monaco. Which is quite an attraction to kids. There is a smaller ditch that traverses along the southwest corner and goes off the northwest portion of the development. It will be tiled to continue delivery of water to the neighbors. The cellular tower was mentioned which is in the northwest corner, it sits in about 400 feet on the west boundary and about 400 feet from the north boundary. And if you look at the preliminary plat as submitted that is the last phase of this development, it is phase 4. There is currently a lease in fact on that property for that tower, but it will expire. And when it does expire there will either be negotiations I'm sure involved and the chances of it going away are real when that happens and the last phase will develop. Pathways were discussed, as we mentioned we do have meandering paths designed landscape paths along our collector to move some of that foot traffic. Again the city's Comp Plan calls for a greenbelt along the Five Mile Creek which will be fairly close to this development and will tie into it fairly easily. We spoke about the Linder improvements be taken care of by impact fees. So the developers do pay and the home builders do pay considerable amounts of money in developing their projects through impact fees, through water, sewer, infrastructure, well development fees, so they are paying their way. Were there any other questions Jim that I didn't hit on. Johnson: I can't recall I did take some notes. There was a comment about, specifically the 2 acres in the northwest corner and any type of buffering consideration. Lee: Well, that wasn't considered obviously in the design of this layout. And I am not sure what Fieldstone or Sunnybrook Farms is doing to buffer the other side of that development. I think we can take a look at if it something that needs to be addressed. Johnson: I don't see anything else that you haven't touched on. I think that is it as far as my notes are concerned. Lee: Thank you Johnson: Okay the public hearing is still open is there anybody that has a last comment? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do Commission? Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of Fact and conclusions of law on this project. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 59 Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for Turtle Creek application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WESTDALE PARK #2 by MAX BOESIGER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: Is there a representative for the developer in the audience please come forward at this time and address the Commission, I will now open the public hearing. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Merkle: Again my packet did not include the ACRD comments and I am not sure that yours does either, but I will provide them for you. I am here this evening on behalf of Max Boesiger the applicant. This particular application is for annexation with R-8 zoning and a preliminary plat for 38 single family lots on approximately 12.2 acres that is about 3.2 lots per acre. In the original application we had 39 single family lots however we added the stub street to the north that I'll speak about here regarding Gary's comments and ACRD comments and my presentation. So, we are requesting 38 single family lots on 12.2 acres. The vicinity map in the packet I just gave you shows the area in which we are located to the east of us is the existing Westdale Park No. 1 which was an Ada County R-8 subdivisions completed last year. West of us is the existing Crossroads Subdivision preliminary plat. Our east boundary is right at the edge of the Meridian Impact area, between Boise and Meridian. Our south boundary is the Pine-Emerald Corridor that ACHD is working on from Eagle Road all the way through to Cloverdale and that abuts our property on the south there. The applicant is proposing lot sizes in this subdivision that range from 7,000 to 12,000 square feet. Again we have these large lot sizes because of the geometry of the site, it is 350 or 400 feet wide by a 1 /4 mile. So, there is not much else we can do but what we propose. Home sizes proposed for the project will be a minimum of 1500 square foot. Access to the subdivision will be from the existing Westdale No. 1 subdivision which enters from Cloverdale Road on the east and will have a stub street to the north, a stub street to the south and allow for right of way for the future Pine Street Corridor, that is the little at the very bottom there. Where is kind of ends up halfway through the subdivision. We met with ACRD last week and went to their technical review. And basically we have met their requirements on the site specific requirements by allowing a stub street to the north culdesac and the right of way for Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 60 Pine sVeet. Our original application did not show the culdesac and the stub street to the north. The timing of these applications when they come through, sometimes we get information as we go through them that really you guys don't get, kind of like the ACHD comments. I will be providing staff with an updated preliminary plat we just got completed today. I provided them one Friday to show the north stub street and this one does. All the streets within the subdivision will be built to the Highway Districts standards, 50 foot right of way typical, 36 foot streets and 5 foot sidewalks. City sewer and water will be extended from Crossroads, it will be a future phase of Crossroads, it is not there yet, but it will be in a future phase of Crossroads will be extended in this subdivision. Right now I would like to address the City Engineer's comments. I agree with his comment on #1, that is basically a statement. Number 2 regarding the block length, we have resolved that with our addition of the stub street to the north so we no longer exceed on this plat the ordinance of the City of Meridian. Item #3 with that addition of the culdesac at the west end and the stub street there shouldn't be a need for a turn around now. He is correct in stating the Highway District didn't want to tie this road into Crossroads and bottom line is they didn't want traffic from Crossroads Subdivision using this street out to Cloverdale. They wanted to force it down to the future Pine Street which will be I believe an arterial, I think it is bigger than a collector. And then go back and forth between Eagle Road and Cloverdale. Regarding the fire department issue, we met with Kenny Bowers of the fire department, Mr. Boesiger and myself a couple weeks back and we believe we will meet his requirements. In the interim the emergency access to the subdivision because Crossroads future phase is not there and also the Pine Street corridor is not there. In the interim the emergency access to the subdivision will be from Cloverdale road and Mr. Bowers has contacted North Ada County Fire and Rescue to coordinate this emergency response. Gary's comment #4 we agree with this item. His 5th one, during the final design our sewer and water plans, when we get to that stage of development we will accommodate his requirements. The access way, the sewer and water are going to come through a common lot in the Crossroads subdivision, just west of this subdivision into our culdesac. Number 6, we will comply with that issue, #7 we have complied with that regarding a stub street to the north. Number 8 we can provide this information for him, and 9 and 10 are minor. They are normal issues we deal with in the design. Regarding the Planning and Zoning Administrators comments, we have added a 10 foot landscape buffer the green stripe right next to Pine street. It is not in the front of the subdivisions, it is not a main access for this subdivision, it is at the rear of about 10 or 15 of those lots. We feel that is going to be adequate enough to provide a buffer, what she is wanting to do the property to the south of us is an industrial zone in the County right now. We want to provide a buffer between this single family zoning and that existing zoning. And we feel with the 10 foot landscape buffer and the depth of those lots, some of those lots are 150 to 180 feet deep. But there is going to be plenty of a Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 61 buffer between Pine Street, the area to the south of us and those particular lots. So, we feel we are going to comply with her request there. Regarding her comment about the adjacent industrial zone on the final plat, making a comment. So, these folks in the subdivision are going to be aware that is zoned for industrial we can comply with that. I'm not sure if the County will let us put that on the plat but we will make them aware, make the buyers aware of that. In conclusion we have requested you approve this annexation and preliminary plat and if you have any questions I will be happy to try and answer them. Johnson: I have a question, this design doesn't show a whole lot of imagination, what are your comments on that? Merkle: Well, that is a good question, but the answer is the size of the ground that was parceled off years back leaves us with very little alternative. To the north of us is the Nazarene Church, they have I believe an 80 acre piece that is basically all privately owned for church uses. They don't want, at this time they are not going to develop any of the back part as any kind of residential or anything. It is strictly going to be ball fields or what not for future church uses. To the south of us there is industrial ground with the Pine Street Corridor and that leaves us with a long narrow 1 /4 mile by 400 foot tract of land that we feel is appropriate for single family. Johnson: Any kid with a 12 inch ruler. Shearer: The first straight street I have seen. Hepper: What is the minimum house square footage? Merkle: Max has told me t inform you that there will be a minimum of 1500 square foot and t think that goes along with his first phase which is a real sharp looking subdivisions if you have been out there to see that. Hepper: (Inaudible) Merkle: No duplexes whatsoever, in fact in the development agreement I'm sure we would limit the density to the application that we have right here. Again, Mr. Chairman the reason for the R-8 is the lot widths. Johnson: Any other questions? Thanks Jim, it is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to address this application? Rowan Wilson, 1567 Leslie Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 62 Wilson: I represent the Cloverdale Seventh Adventist Church, which is just to the north of this piece of property. He stated that it was a Nazeren church ,but it is the Seventh Adventist Church, and there is a school there too. And we are looking forward to some nice new neighbors, but we would request that they put a 6 foot fence along the north boundary of the subdivision. And our reasons for that is that it would help the line definition of the church property ended that began. The children that are playing at school would resolve a lot of problems, it would reduce liability on both sides and we would ask that no gates be allowed in that back fence that goes between both properties. Mr. Boesiger requested the Church write a fetter stating that there would be no residential development on the back of the church property and the church has declined to do that. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mrs. Wilson. Anyone else? Max Boesiger, 1399 East Monterey Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney. Boesiger: Just primarily in response to Mrs. Wilson's comments there on the 6 foot fence. In the first phase of Westdale we didn't put a fence in there and our reason for not doing that was to be able to take advantage of the open space that was back there. I felt personally that if I lived on one of those lots that 1 would probably want to put in a chain link fence because that way I could take advantage of the open space which is something that everybody likes. We thought that if we put up a 6 foot fence it would cut that off and you would have considerable lost opportunity. On the other hand I recognize that some people consider privacy more important that view of open space. So we had a hard time making up our mind what kind of fence to put in there. And whether a fence should even go in. People may want to plant in a shrub, maybe put in some kind of low shrub across the back of the property to provide both. So, we generally don't have a problem with fencing boundaries of subdivisions like that, but we don't like to do it when it detracts from the subdivision or if it creates any kind of a problem with the subdivision. I think that we would be amenable to provide that fence except to me it doesn't feel like the right thing to do because it cuts off the open space. Perhaps a compromise position might be for us to put in say a 5 foot fence or a 4 foot fence that way you can kind of have the best of both worlds, It isn't that we are trying to escape the cost, it is that we are trying to make the lots as desirable as we can and yet be able to satisfy everyone's needs. So, I am open to that and I would be willing to continue our discussions with the Seventh Day Advenstist Church as far as arriving at some kind of solution on that. And I would be happy to answer any questions. I take exception to the point that was made that there is very little creativity here. Because it is my layout. Johnson: There is so much you can do with something like that, I understand that. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 63 that was a joke I didn't mean to offend you. Boesiger: 1 do wish I had brought some pictures of the first phase because it is amazing with just a little bit of a curve linear design of a street like that how you can take away that long skinny nature when you have enough ground there to work with like Jim said some of those lots are 170 some odd feet deep. So, you can meander that street back and forth and it doesn't feel like you are driving down a long straight tunnel. And I think we can just continue doing that and still have a real good effect and not get that tunnel effect. I would be happy to answer questions. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Anybody else like to address the Commission on this issue? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is zoning with a preliminary plat, annexation. We need some action from the Commission. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer; Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3 BY STIENER DEVELOPMENT AND PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative from the developer would you please come forward and be sworn. Douglas Campbell, 15573 Meridian No. 113, was sworn by the Attorney. Campbell: The proposed project that we are presenting tonight is a 46 acre subject that has been before the City I think one time before. It is not new to the City is a 46 acre which Steiner Development will be donating 13 acres to the City golf course and 1 acre to the club house. The lot sizes are going to be approximately 80 by 110 minimum up to 90 by 140 on the golf courses. The CC&R's wilt be basically the same as the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 2. Tile roofs, shakes, and basically follow what is out there now. The price range that will be set on the current subdivision will probably be about 5104,000 to S180,000. They will probably be a step up from what you are seeing out there now basically because of the cost of the lots will a, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 64 dictate the price of the houses. We are working with Brighton Development we are developing 2 1 /2 holes of the nine holes that are coming out. We are working with Brighton Development who is going to do the other 6 1 /2 holes along with Resorts International who is doing the conceptual on the course. We feel we have a nice layout, Resorts International has made a presentation I guess some time ago. Hopefully with your approval of the conceptual plan we feel we have a very nice project that we are going to be giving to the City of Meridian and the people. We have met with ACHD last week and have their approval on the street layouts. There are a few conditions that Mr. Smith had addressed that I would like to talk about. One of the them was they wanted to run a street a connector on the west it would be the east side of the property and that would be going through the golf course. tt would be going through the hole No. 2 1 /2 basically and I don't know if that is going to be aesthetically work. If we ran it in between holes No. 2 and 3 that probably won't work so that is something we are going to have to address down the line and see how you want to handle that because I guess we are exceed to the 1,000 foot ordinance. Johnson: Which point of Gary's are you addressing? Campbell: It would be number 2. So, he was talking about putting a connector, needing a connector between Sea Cove and Harbor Point Drive. And I don't know how we are going to, I guess we are going to have to work on it because if we put it through the west of the property we are going to go through holes 2 and 3 and if we go to. One layout we had which David Peugh from Resorts International had it going in between holes 2 and 3 which would be right (inaudible). I guess we (inaudible) how we are going to handle that situation. But that is something that we need to address and either do that or get a variance and handle it that way. Johnson: Are there any other specific items you want to address? Campbell: Yes, the other one is #3, we will be tiling the drain laterals on the easterly part of the project. So that will be tiled and then #4, we will be building a seepage pit which, there are 2 thousand gallon retention, one is located right here, one is located right there. So we will build this seepage if it is okay with the City Engineer (inaudible) and the storm drain problem there as far as retention. And then #11, on the street lights, currently if you go through the subdivision that is out there now they have all outside lights as far as, they don't have street tights they have the lawn lights, but that is what we would like to continue with those. Basically, everything else we don't have a problem with the comments. As far as the access to the subdivision, currently they will be coming through Ten Mile which will be the subdivision (inaudible) right now. The access will be right here and then through • ! Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 65 (inaudible) 2 access points. Eventually when the property to the east and to the north (inaudible) we have access points there. And that is basically it, if you have any questions I would sure be glad to answer them. We would like to have your approval tonight and step forward with that one condition on the handling that connector street. I don't know I couldn't answer anything tonight because I really don't know that was brought up to me tonight. But we will sure be glad to work with you on that. I just don't know how with that golf course situation how we are going to do it. Johnson: Well, that would seem to me to be very important that we maintain the integrity of the course there if it can be done. Any questions? Rountree: Did you have an opportunity to read the comments from the Planning & Zoning Administrator? Campbell: We were talking about those, I don't even know if I have those in my packet. As far as the Rutledge Lateral on item #2 that is going to, it basically runs right through here and comes across here and out the property. What we are going to do is realign it and (inaudible) and then straight out. So we are going to spend about 5100,000 on that to move it and cover it. Number 3 I can't address right now because I don't know. She might have to help me on that one I don't know where you could put a school site or a fire station on our property. We dedicated 15 acres to the City for the golf course 1 don't know what else we can do. Johnson: She is making reference to our generalized plan, Comprehensive Plan that somewhere in that vicinity. As you know we don't specifically pinpoint where that is. Campbell: Item #4, we are currently I met with the (inaudible) on the, what we are having problems with right now is these lots (inaudible) we are dealing with. What we are going to do is open is this area up so its a little bit wider so we don't have a problem with golf balls going through the window, basically these 3 lots here. Then we are making theses, we are proposing 120 we are cutting back to 110 on the depth. So we will work with the city. And that was brought up 2 days ago, 3 days ago. Our golf course architect approached us and told us we do have a problem with depth and we are addressing that. I talked with Mayor and let him know that we will work with the City on that. (End of Tape) Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 66 Russell McCray, 3757 West Harbor Point, was sworn by the Attorney. McCray: I live in the current section of the Lake At Cherry Lane No. 3 which is extended by this proposed subdivision, I have several questions. One which is primary to us we would like to know the possible time frame of the improvements on this as a resident of having purchased a lot which was bounded by a golf course fairway, we have been promised for quite a number of years now that there would be some action on the development of that. It is a continuous problem with fighting weeds and maintenance problem and we as existing residents of #hat area I think I speak for most all of them that we would like to see the promises carried through which were given to us when we purchased that property back there. Johnson: Who made the promises to you? McCray: The developer at the time. And the, so that is a primary concern of ours to make sure that is, the golf course is developed not necessarily waiting until all the nine holes are in. Which was not part and requisite promise of having the lot there. We are concemed about additional egress from the subdivision, they are working on that Ten Mile exit at this point, but again with I don't if I mentioned there are 170 lots in this proposal that is a great deal of traffic to be born. through a very narrow section of road there which virtually all of those 170 homes plus the existing homes that are on Harbor Point would all have to funnel through. There is only one exit out of that entire area and I am concerned about having additional egress other than that one exit. I don't know if the developer mentioned along with the putting in of the additional fairways, the expansion of the lake and the other improvements associated with that. He took down his drawing here I can't see what it was now. Johnson:. May we have your drawing back please. McCray: It would appear that, I don't know if there is an expansion of the lake shown there or not. And that was my understanding that the lake was to be expanded as the expansion of the golf course occurred. And one of the problems was the aspect of the narrow fairway, I play a little bit of golf which a number of you gentlemen do too as well, but that hole or whatever it is there coming off of that tee, that would be a real challenge. Campbell: This right here is about as this map shows here is a revised there are about 175 or about 170 feet at this point. Which is wider than some of the fairways existing right now. So that is about what we are going to have once we adjust the lot line right here. Out of bound right here is about 120. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 67 Johnson: What is out there? Campbell: Well that is where we are expanding, about 175 feet. Johnson: What is there the tee or the (inaudible)? Campbell: That is the tee McCray: Tees are considerable back from the point. I would want to go with at least an 8 to get over those houses. At any rate those are some of my concerns, probably not all of them but including all of the schools etc. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. McCray? Anyone else like to come forward? Everybody else is just an observer. t appreciate you guys sticking around so late. 1 will close the public hearing, no I won't, I will reopen the public hearing. Is there anything you haven't addressed, is there anyone over there that would like to touch on something. Okay, I will now close the public hearing. What would you like to do with this application? Do you want o just deny it? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we have the City Attorney draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law for preliminary plat for the Lake at Cherry Lane No.3. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of tact and conclusions of law for this application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Anything else? When are we going to get these findings of fact Wayne? Crookston: We don't need them. Johnson: Well you will have to withdraw that then. Alidjani: I withdraw my motion. Johnson: Why didn't you catch that earlier? Shearer: You are going to fast. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 12, 1994 Page 68 Johnson: Can we have a motion please? Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we pass on a favorable recommendation for the preliminary plat as amended per discussion this evening to the City Council. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council with conditions so stated amendments so described, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any other motions? Shearer: I move we adjourn Rountree: Second Johnson: Its moved and seconded that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:46 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK ~ ~F~iGfi~I~~. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING3 AND ZONINO COMMISSION BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEBATION AND ZONING GOVERNMENT LOT 3. 88CTION 6, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M.. ADA COUNTY. IDARO MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA1P 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 Sast Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Gene Smith, 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 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 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 40 acres in size; it is located between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road and being approximately 1,320 feet east of the intersection of Meridian Road and Ustick Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use is requested to be for R-8 Residential type development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not, as of the date of application, the owner of record of the property. The owner of record is the Helen V. DAvis, who has approved of the 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 entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is for one house and for agriculture use; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 type subdivision use; that the Applicant did not submit a request for approval of a subdivision plat; that the density would be between 3.5 and 4 units per acre; that the Applicant stated that there would only be single family dwellings and would be similar to the surrounding subdivisions which are zoned R-8 but have agreed that there would only be single family dwellings; Mike Tanner, representing the Applicant, stated that Applicant would be putting in a park like corridor through green belt type. area with a pathway; he also stated that he "would want to put in a quality project and be consistent with the neighborhood in the area and what we do we try to do in a quality way." 10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the application. 11. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, the Central District Health Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments which were that the application complied with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the City Engineer commented that the Onweiler Lateral and the South Slough course through the property and will need to be continued with any development; the Ada County Highway District did not submit comments, but when they are received they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for would comply with the neighborhood. 17. 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." 18. 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 . 19. 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." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation should 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. 24. The Meridian School District, in prior comments to annexation in this area, commented that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of new subdivisions could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 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, parka and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parka 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 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 Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application 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 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, Brighton Corporation, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but is at the request of the City Planning Director. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, 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, IC, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-B; that the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning or R-8, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED ROUNTREE VOTED SHEARER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de- annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AVENUE ONE ANNEBATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF TBE NPi 1/4 NE 1/4. SECTION 3 T. 3N.. R. 1K.. B.M. DAKOTA RIDGB ESTATES MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAH 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through David Roylance, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINOS 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 matter was duly considered at the April 12, 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 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 41.57 acres in size; the property is west of Ten Mile Road on Ustick Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be 8,000 square feet, that there would be 135 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be 1,500 square feet, that there would be 3.25 lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes, that all lots would be 8,000 square feet, and that sprinkling systems are provided for. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-4, Residential fashion. 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 Leonard A. Ashenbrenner and Nadine Ashenbrenner; that the Ashenbrenners have not submitted a request or consent to this 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 R-4 Residential; that the p"resent use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 3.25 dwelling units per acre. 10. The Applicant's representative addressed the questions of Gary Smith, City Engineer, and such responses are incorporated herein as if set forth in full as are the comments of Gary Smith. 11. That comments were received from the Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Bealth Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power Company; that there comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. There were two people testifying at the hearing; Beverly McKay was concerned about the traffic on Ustick Road; Gary Johnson did not object but wanted it on the record that he has a family farm in the area and that from the farm there is dust and they apply sprays, which could be objectionable, and he just wanted the people to know that they did those types of things. 13. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 14. 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. 15. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for ~i ~~ agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 17. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 18. 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." 19. 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 . 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Uae, 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." 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 31. That Section 11-9-605 R 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 corridora 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 uni.unproved 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 araraina nes and es ecially waterways, 9 natural value, P natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle Pedestrian Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian; that the annexation should be denied if the owner's request or consent to annexation and zoning is not filed with the City prior to the hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 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; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions and at the public hearing, and of the Ada County Aighway District, if submitted, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning Director reference herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be require#d to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; 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 mat 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. 14. That the house size representation of 1,500 square feet must be met. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditiona of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SBEARER VOTED ~~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECODQD3NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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 a pressurized irrigation system 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property b MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: pRIG11~~L BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MELODY J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT 10 - BLOCK 4 OF MERIDIAN TOWNSITE EAST OF BROADWAY AVENUE AND NORTB OF SECOND ST. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing April 12, 1944, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit 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 matter was duly considered at the April 12, 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 is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 1 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a small ceramics and gift shop business which the application requests. q. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10. as follows: ~nm~ Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District 1s to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi-public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specific allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409 B. 6. That the abutting properties are used for commercial purposes. 7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 2 g. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. 9. That the City Engineer, Central District Health Department, Eire Department, and Police Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 10. That the Fire Department commented that the building should be brought up to current fire safety codes. 11. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. 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 grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, .and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 3 • the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. q, The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. PAGE 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer must be met and complied with. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 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 YK-~"- COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED~~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTA - PAGE 5 described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 6 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC. FIRE LIGHT ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING NE 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M. SOUTH OF USTICK ON TEN MILE ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAAO 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 through a representative, Gene Smith, 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 RUNNING BROOK ESTATSB, INC./FIRELIGHT annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 8.14 acres in size; it is located at 3095 North Ten Mile Road on the west side and approximately 700 feet south of Ustick Road; the development would include 27 lots. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT (Rural Transition; that the Applicant has requested that the property be zoned R-4 Residential and stated that the use proposed would be for R-4 Residential development. 4. The present land use has one single family residential home designated Block 2, Lot 9, and the remainder of the property surrounding the single family residence is unused pasture. That the Applicant stated that they have approximately 3.3 dwelling units per acre; that the houses would be a minimum of 1500 square foot homes in the $115,000 to $165,000 range; that all streets are proposed to be built to ACHD standards with access to the project being off Ten Mile and also through the proposed Englewood Creek subdivision to the north; that the Applicant submitted an application for preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and zoning. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the owner of record, Ann E. Crawford, has requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAH Page 2 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application. 10. Gene Smith addressed City Engineer, Gary Smith's written comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full, concerning this application's lots; that some of these lots don't have 8,000 square feet as required by the Ordinance. 11. The other major concern City Engineer, Gary Smith, had, which Gene Smith commented on was the project being in a zone AE flood zone. Gene Smith commented that the flood zone is being worked on with the project to the north. In order to eliminate that flood zone a new culvert will be installed under Ustick Road and a letter of map revision will be applied for with FEMA to take the entire area out of the AE zone. 12. Mr. Gary Smith commented that the frontage to Lot 2, Block 1, Lot 14, Block 2, Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 13, Block 2 do not meet the minimum street frontage; City Engineer, Gary Smith's opinion of a flag lot is one with an allowed 30 foot frontage, of which these lots are not, therefor they should be 80 foot frontages with compliance with the R-4 zone. 13. It was also commented by Gene Smith that the sewer easement that passes through the property should not be fenced into. FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 RUNNING SROOR ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT the backyards of the adjacent lots. 14. That the landscape easement on Ten Mile Road is outside of the proposed right of way so it is proposed that each individual lot has a landscape easement to handle sidewalk, curb, and gutter and that those items would be addressed in the Homeowners' Association CC&R's to be each individuals responsiblity for maintaining. 15. That the Developer would initially landscape but make it each homeowners responsibility to maintain. 16. City Engineer, Gary Smith, testified as to the landscaping issue with regards to the subdivisions responsibility to provide a buffer between the lots and the roadway as well as a side buffer to avoid any problems as to the future expansion of Ten Mile. 17. That the Nine Mile Drain, which courses along the south side of this property, is a Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District/Federal Government drain ditch. N & M Irrigation District claims 50 feet from the center of the drain. Any encroachment within this 50 foot right-of-way must be under a written agreement. 18. The Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, City Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation City Police Department, Idaho Power, Settlers Irrigation District, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee and City Fire Department did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Ada County Highway District may submit comments and if it does those FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT comments will be, and are, incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 19. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 20. 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. 21. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 22. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 23. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: FINDIN(i8 OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIf4BT "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." 25. 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 . 26. 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." 27. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 28. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 32. 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."; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGBT that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 33. 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. 34. 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." 35. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAi+i Page 8 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT 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." 36. 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;" 37. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 38. 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 Page 9 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle Pedestrian Desictn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 38. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external .boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application by the provisions contained in Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. ¢. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv 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, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. The development agreement shall also w,~ p~rn~ c,~idE.E, address the landscaping along Ten Mile Road, and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall require the mandatory homeowners association as a condition of annexation. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT 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; 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 1, H 2, K, L and the comments of the Planning Director, Wayne Forrey; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 14. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind Page 13 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 17. That if these conditions of approval are net met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~` ~ ! n DECISION IAND~~RE--COQ/MMENDATION The Merid an Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City anning and Zoning Commissio f the City of Meridian that they app 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 a pressurized irrigation system as FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGHT 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED:~% DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15 RUNNING BROOK ESTATES, INC./FIRELIGRT URiGsvr~L BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ROBERT GLENN ANNERATION AND ZONING SW 1/4 SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP 3N RANGE 1 WEST NORTH SIDE CHERRY LANE ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Ted Hutchinson of Tealey's Surveying, 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 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. ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 1 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 25 acres in size; the property is on the north side of Cherry Lane, between Sunburst and Sunnybrook Farms Subdivisions. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be over 8,000 square feet, that there would be 87 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of a home would be 1,400 square feet, that there would be 3.5 lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes and that this will be the first phase of a two phase development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used with some agriculture but it is used mostly residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-4, Residential fashion. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owner is Joan D. Priest, of Caldwell, Idaho; that Joan D. Priest has submitted a request or consent to this 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. ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 2 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 R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 3.50 dwelling units per acre. 10. The Applicant's representative addressed the questions of Gary Smith, City Engineer, and such responses are incorporated herein as if set forth in full as are the comments of Gary Smith. 11. That comments were received from the Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and Shari Stiles, Zoning Administrator; that there comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. There were nine people testifying at the hearing; Tina Morse, representing Sunnybrook Farms Homeowners Association was concerned about their park and with regards to access burdening Chateau and denied to Cherry Lane. 13. Tina Morse and Kathy Reierson, a residents of Sunnybrook Farms, object to paying yearly fees for maintaining their park when an adjacent subdivision's residents could come in and possibly use the park but pay no fees for upkeep; Mrs. Reierson also objected to the Ada County Highway Departments denial of access off Cherry Lane; Bill Carroll, a resident of Sunburst Subdivision, was ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 3 concerned about small children and the additional traffic and desired that Gem Stone street be left unconnected and he had concerns over wildlife in the area; Sue Sheehan stated that she desired a "SLOW. CHILDREN AT PLAY" sign and that schools were of great concern to her. 14. Mr. Ken Tetrault testified regarding his concerns as to the status of Gem Stone Drive remaining a dead end street; that he and other residenT on the street wish it to remain a dead end street; also he was concerned about the irrigation ditch and the trees and wildlife to be found there; that if the subdivision goes in, those living in Sunburst subdivision will see the ditch needing to be tiled and therefore lose a good ecosystem. 15. Charlen Miller was concenred over the number of children that would be going to Linder Elementary and Meridian Middle School; Melody Lowe also testified as to the interruption this subdivision will play on the ecosystem as well as her concerns with the number of children these homes will have and how that affects the schools overcrowding. 16. Scott Campbell stated that he had concern over the traffic that would be created by this development; Jan DeWeerd had concerns over traffic and the school overloading. 17. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 18. 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 ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 4 i • until urban services can be provided. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 20. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 21. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 22. 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." 23. 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 . ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 5 24. 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." 25. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 26. 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. 27. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 6 r amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 7 "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and 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 ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION page $ recreation facilities." 32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desicn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. 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. ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 9 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 6. 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 ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 10 • as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation, Settlers Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning Director reference herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 11 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; 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 1, H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any 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. 14. That the house size representation of 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and assigns. ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 12 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. ~y. ~~~t the APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~p~cne~~ DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridia Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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 a pressurized irrigation system as conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 13 development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: nvvunvFne ~IX-~ DISAPPROVED: ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SiJBDIVISION Page 14 ,,~, ° ~l~Il.r ;, ~~_ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KEVIN HOWELL ANNE7[ATION AND ZONING NE 1/4, Section 6. T. 3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION3 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through its engineer, Jim Merkle, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK 3UBDIVISION newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is six (6) acres in size; the property is south of Ustick Road and West of Locust Grove Road, directly west of the Finch Creek subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8 Residential type development; that the Applicant states the subdivision lot size would be average, around 9,000 square feet, that there would be 20 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be 1,300 square feet, that there would be 3.50 lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes, that all lots would be 9,000 square feet; the Applicant, however, stated that the minimum house size would be 1,350 sdquare feet. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-8, Residential fashion. 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 Charles E. and Mary Beth Wells, husband and wife; that the owners have submitted a request or consent to this Application for annexation and zoning. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION 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 R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 3.50 dwelling units per acre. 10. The Applicant's representative stated that the subdivisions access will be from Finch Creek to the east; the streets within the subdivision will be built to the Highway District's standards with 50 foot of right of way, 36 foot streets and 5 foot sidewalks; that sewer and water can be provided to the subdivision through the Finch Creek Subdivision. 11. That Jim Merkle addressed some of the comments of City Engineer, Gary Smith, and such comments of Gary Smith and the responses of Jim Merkle are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. That comments were received from the Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power Company, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 13. That in response to a question by Commissioner Johnson, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 BOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION Mr. Merkle stated that the R-8 zoning request was made because the lots have substantial depth; some of the lots will be 65 to 70 feet in width and 150 feet deep; because we have some monster lots in there that we don't feel we want to go with the R-4 frontage requirement of 80 feet; that the surrounding vicinity is zoned R-8; that we would not be in excess of the density we propose. 14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 17. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 18. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 $OWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION u that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for would comply with the neighborhood. 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION • ~ "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 23. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 24. 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. 25. 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. 28. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools; that before they could support this subdivision, land needs to be dedicated to the district or at least made available for a school site in this area; that the site would need water and sewer service available. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 AOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ! ~ 29. 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, po:Lice, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 30. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 ROWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION ! ~ 31. 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." 32. 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." 33. 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;" 34. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 35. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 36. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF .LAW Page 9 ROWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION • Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions and at the public hearing, and of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; 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 1, H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any 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. 14. That the house size representation of 1,350 square feet must be met. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 BOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED 'Y ~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: ~~--'" DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION OR{GI~AL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STEELE S SON LTD. LAND CO. ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 NE 1/4, SECTION 3, T. 3N., R. 1W., B.M. TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through its engineer, Gary Lee, 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to TURTLE CREER ANNEXATION FF 6 CL Page - 1 newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 75.80 acres in size; the property is west of Linder Road and north of Chateau Drive. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his Subdivision application that the lots would be 8,000 square feet, that there would be 245 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum square footage of home would be 1,400 square feet, that there would be 3.40 lots per acre, that there would only be single family homes, that all lots would be 8,000 square feet. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is developed in the R-4, Residential fashion. 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 Vernon and Feirba Cairns, Husband and wife, and John L Ernest and Anna Beth Ernest, husband and wife; that the owners have submitted a request or consent to this Application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. B. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the density would be approximately 3.20 dwelling units per acre. 10. The Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision includes a meandering walkway along Linder Road in the area adjacent to the development; the meandering walkway and landscaped buffer will extend into the project along the main collector highway; an additional ten feet beyond the nine feet available on the public right of way for landscaping and the sidewalk; that there will be some berming accomplished along Linder Road for sound buffering from the traffic on Linder ; that there will be a homeowners association formed to maintain all the common areas including the meandering entryway. 11. That Gary Lee addressed some of the comments of City Engineer, Gary Smith, and such comments of Gary Smith and the responses of Gary Lee are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. That Mr. Lee indicated that he agreed that there w=should be pedestrian pathways between the cul-de-sacs. 13. That comments were received from the Meridian Police TURTLE CREEK ANNE][ATION FF & CL Page - 3 Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, Idaho Power Company, and Shari Stiles the Zoning Administrator submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That in response to questions by Commissioner Hepper, Mr. Lee agreed that along Linder Road, the home owners will be restricted from building a solid fence next to the split rail fence that the developer is going to construct there on the berming. 15. There were people testifying at the hearing: a. Ray Valenti had concerns over traffic stating that Chateau will bear the brunt of much of the traffic; that he had concern over the traffic and the school children that are in the Area. b. Dory McVae echoed Mr. Valenti's concerns; that she wanted a 4-way stop at Monaco and Chateau; that Linder School would be overburdened; that she desired a flashing light at the entrance to Linder School off Chateau; that the water pressure was decreasing because of residential development. c. Jeff Crowell stated concerns over traffic and that schools were needed for the children that will be filling all these homes that are coming. d. Beverly McKay was concerned about the traffic, school problems and crime, and she had concerns over the irrigation ditch that is close to her property. e. Cory Sweng stated that he wanted the same buffering that the Slagle property was receiving and wanted his irrigation rights preserved. He also desired that the City require that land be set aside for schools, parks and recreational uses. He also had questions about the Cellular One tower that was near this property. f. Jan DeWeerd testified that ~he opposed this project; that the desired more open space; that $he desired the creek south of the property to be used for open space; =he had concerns over traffic; the desired that the City and the TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 4 School District to work together to plan. g. Diana Brunello had concerns over the schools and their overcrowding; also the traffic and the speed of the traffic on Chateau were of great concern to her. h. Tammy DeWeerd echoed her husband's comments; that she desired a traffic study and a stop sign at Glenfield and Chateau; that the disregard for wildlife concerned her. i. Shirley Slagle had concerns about the school problems; she questioned what was happening with the entrance to Chateau; she desired fencing on the back of the property. j. Paul Jahner stated that he had concerns over the school situation; that he desired a 4-way stop at the intersection of Chateau and Monaco way. k. Kathy Reirerson stated concerns over traffic and schools; and she question why there were no dates as to when things are going to be done; she desired impact fees on new development. 16. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 17. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 18. That Meridian has, and ia, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 20. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows: TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 5 (R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non- residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone. 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: TURTLE CREEK ANNE7CATZON FF & CL Page - 6 "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 25. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 26. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and TURTLE CREEK ANNEBATION FF & CL page _ ~ that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 29. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 30. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF & CL Page $ 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. 31. 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." 32. 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." 33. 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;" 34. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF ~ CL Page - 9 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 35. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicvcle Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 36. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 10 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 upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 6. 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 Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1963). 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 TURTLE CREEK ANNE]CATION FF & CL Page - 11 to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, including those he specifically stated in his comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions and at the public TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 12 hearing, and of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation.; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be require#d to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; 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 TURTLE CREEK ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 13 met. 14. That the house size representation of 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~' COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED fe DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the~ty Planning and Zoning Commission~of the City of Meridian TURTLE CREEK ANNERATION FF ~ CL ~ Page - 14 (emu n c:~- 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 a pressurized irrigation system 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 ORIGIwAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAR BOESIGER ANNEgATION AND ZONING S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 SECTION 9 T.3N. R.lE. B.M. ADA COUNTY MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on 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 Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Jim Merkle and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for MAR BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 1 : annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 12.2 acres in size; it is located West of Cloverdale Road, and South of Fairview Avenue. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-8. 4. Home sizes proposed for this project will be a minimum of 1,500 square feet, with 7,000 to 12,000 square foot lots. 5. Yhat the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits and the entrance will be from Cloverdale and Pine Street/Emerald extension with a stub street to the north. 6. Cloverdale Seventh Day Adventist Church is located to the north. 7. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the owner of record, Carol M. Marshall, of San Francisco, California, and has requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 8. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. That the entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. As found above, the Application requested that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Medium Density Residential; that MAR BOESIGER/WESTDALS M2 Page 2 -~ the applicant has indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision, and would not to included duplexes. 11. Jim Merkle addressed the Commission, on behalf of Max Boesiger the Applicant, regarding Gary Smith's, City Engineer's, comments of the project, which are incorporated herein. 12. Sewer and water lines will be installed and the accessway will come through the Crossroads subdivision, just east of this project. 13. Rowan Wilson, representing the Cloverdale Seventh Day Adventist Church, requested that Applicant put a 6 foot fence along the north boundary of the subdivision to help define the boundaries of the church property as well as there is a school at the church and it would reduce the liability on both sides because of the children. Mrs. Wilson also asked that no gates be allowed in the back fence. 14. Max Boesiger commented to Mrs. Wilson's remarks about the fencing with regards to privacy versus open space. Mr. Boesiger is willing to continue discussions with the church and suggested a compromise of a 5 or 4 foot fence. 15. That comments were received from the Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central District Bealth Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, Idaho Power Company, and Shari Stiles the Zoning Administrator submitted comments, and they all are incorporated herein as if set MAS BOSSIGSR/WESTDALE #2 Page 3 forth in full. 16. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 17. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 18. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 20. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 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 desnity 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 Municpal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone, but the Applicant has stated that the minimum house size would be 1,500 square feet. 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, MA% BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 4 single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . . ~~ 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 25. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 26. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment MAx SOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 5 in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 29. 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 MAS BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 6 population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 30. 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. 31. 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." 32. 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 MAR SOESIGER/WESTDALE $2 Page 7 (20' ) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 33. That Section 11-9-605 B 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;" 34. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 35. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv NAB BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 8 (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 36. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. NA% SOSSIGER/WSSTDALS {)2 Page 9 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 owner and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 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, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, 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 MA% BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 10 • required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with the Rural Areas policies. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-8; that the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled and pressurized irrigation installed as a condition of annexation and if not so done the MAR BOESIGER/WSSTDALE A2 Page 11 property shall be subject to de-annexation. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning or R-8, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; that since the Applicant stated the minimum size home would be 1,500 square feet, that minimum size must be met. 15. That if the 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 HEPPER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER AI~IDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED MA% BOESIGER/WSSTDALS #2 Page 12 DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system 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 that if the conditions are not met that the property be de- annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: MAR BOESZGER/WESTDALE ~2 Page 13 / 0 AGHU -~+y HLHtlLY; GN C:. WIUU7/UlY 7 ! q i ' r n 'Z ~/ \~ ~ , I ~ :l"".'Exp.-DF,PAR';MENT CGRRESPONDENCE ~~OCKCREK/DSTECH GLENN J. RHODES, President 4-6- -9 4 SHERRY R. HUBER, Vice President JAME5 E. BRUCE. SeCf010ry TO: ACRD Commission HATE: March 28, 1994 FROM: l7evPlopment Services SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY FLAT - Rock Creek Subdivision (Developer - Kevin Floweli, Howell Construction, 6901 W Emer ald, Boise, TD 83709) (Engineer/Surveyor - Hubble Engineering (James Merkle), 9550 Bethel Ct, Boise, ID 83709) PRELIMINARY REPORT - NOT FINAL, UNTIL APPROVED BY THE ACRD COMMISSION FACTS & FINDINGS: 1. Rock Creek is a 20 lot single family residential subdivision, located south of Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road (connects with Finch Creek Sub). 2. GENERAL INFORMATION: LEAD AGENCY - Meridian ACRES - 5.7 FEET OF NEW PUBLIC STREETS - 910 LOTS - 20 ZONING - RT with R-8 requested ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY - 200 TRAFFIC ANALXSIS ZONE - 2fi4 L.F. OF FRONTAGE ON Ustick Road - 150.4-fast MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS - Date 1993 Volume 30D0 FUNCTIONAL CLASSZFICATION MAP DESIGNATION - Arterial ADA COUNTY RIDGE-TO-RIVERS PATFirAAY PLAN - Lane EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAX - SO-feet REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY - 90-feet (45-feet from centerline) Ustick Road is improved with Z4-feet of paving. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT ZONE - west Ada IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - Western Cities 3. The ACRD Capital Improvement Plan indicates that Ustick Road :ls approved for use of Road Impact Fee funds to increase its capacity; therefore, Road Impact Fee offsets may be given for construction of •che roadway improvements (excluding sidewalk) ada county highway district 318 Eas1371h • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (2p8) 345.7b80 . . Y }. { RELII4ZNARY PLAT' '~farrh 28. 1994 vage = •F.ock (:rack. Subdivision • zl.onr~ Vstick Iinad jnd foc r:~aht-of-;a«y dedication i.n addition to +.ahat c:,i~ts row. if the developer wishes to be paid for the additional right-of-way, hejshe must submit an application to the ~.mpac:c fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in acrcrdance with Section 15 of ACRD ordinance ;k188. 4. There is an e:tisting single family ri;velling on the parcel, which Ls currently taking access from trsti.ck Road. No other access points are proposed to Vstick Road. The proposed stree*_ system for Rock Creek connects to the west with the recently reviewed Finch creek Subdivision at E. Stormy Drive, snd a stub street. has been proposed on t:he east- ern boundary (E. Sharptail 8t.). S. The preliminary plat indicates that the South Slough, which borders the site to the south, is to be relocated. This application is scheduled for public hearing by the Meridi- an Planning & Zoning Commission on April 12, 1994. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 1. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Vstick Road abutting parcel, including out-parcel (20 additional feet). The owner will be compensated for this additional right-o£-way from available impact fee revenues in this bene- fit zone. A written statement requesting compensation must be submitted to the District prior to breaking ground. 2. ~onstruct or provide a deposit Trust Fund at the District for the ments t5-foot sidewalk) on Vstick abutting parcel. 3. Direct lot or parcel access to Usti compliance with District policy. shall be stated on the final plat. to the Public Rights-of-Way required street improve- Road, including out-parcel, ~k Road is prohibited, in Lot access restrictions The District will not sign the plat for any part of this project until the adjacent street system that it connects to becomes part of the public street system. STANDARD REQVIREMEt7T5• 1. Street and drainage improvements required in the public right- af-way shall be designed and constructed in conformance with District standards and policies. 04/12/91 10:04 $208 a45 7850 dCHD y--~ PRELII~flidARY FLAT - ~k Creek Subdivision • March 28, 1994 Page 3 2. ,,^.adicated streets and drainage systems shall be designed and ~:onstructed in conformance ~.vith ristrict standards and poli- cies. 3. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats, drawings, plans, design information and. calculations presented to ACRD shall be staled, signed and dated by a Registered Professienal Engineer ar Professional Land Surveyor, in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 54-1215_ 4. Provide written approval from the appropriate irriga- tion/drainage district authorizing storm runoff into their system. S. ;~ocate obstructions (utility facilities, irrigation and drain- age appurtenances, etc.l cutside of the proposed street im- provements. Authorization for relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity. 6. Continue existing irrigation and drainaae systems across par- cel. 7. Submit three sets of street construction plans to tine District for review and appropriate action. 8. Submit site drainage plans and calculations fer review and ~' appropriate action by ACRD. The proposed drainage system shall conform to the requirements of Meridian and shall retain all storm water on-site. Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-of-way or in a drainage easement set aside specif- ically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said easement. Drainage .•^•_asements and their use restrictions shall be noted on the plat. 9. Provide design data for proposed access to public streets for review and appropriate action by ACHD. 10. Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of ~-feet from the side lot property lines when the driveways are not being shared with the adjacent property. 11. Developer shall provide the District with a copy of the record- ed plat prior to the 5.nstallation of street name signs. Street signs will. not be ordered until all fees have been paid and a copy of the recorded plat has been provided to ACFID staff. 'Phe copy of the recorded plat shall show the recording information as inscribed by the Deputy County Recorder. ?~nEL2Td:NP.RY PLAT -~ck Creek Suladivisian • Marsh 2A, 1994 Page 4 1~. Cnstall a stop sign an eaery itnsiynalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving ~~ collector or arterial as the cross-street. The stop sign shall be in- stalled when the project street is first accessible to the motoring publi^. 13. A right-of-way permit must be obtained `.rom ACHD for all street and utility construction within the public right-of- way. Contact Construction Services at 345-7067 {with zoning file number) for details. 14. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any require- ment or policy outlined herein shall be made, in writing, to the Manager of Engineering Services within 15 calendar days of the original Commission action. The request shall include a statement explaining why such a requirement would result in substantial hardship nr inequity. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Development Services Division at 345-7662. STAFF SUBMITTING: DATE OF COMMISSION APPROVAL: Larry Sale s' }~ ~~ ~a -. U ~N ~.~ O ~ ~ `~ ~ u~~ v um ~~ r~ l T Y's e~y ¢~A x • ' • _ ~ ~_~ . . G W am ~m a~ ~~ ~, :1: 1 ~ t I~ \. ~', • • y r± ,s ~ ~: ~x s ~ u. M 1 s ~: Ygg ~Sp F J 7 yp W WNV ~0~ ,~ Z~ RaW "~ 'r ~'~ n L~jy / -am _ p"~ 5 V Y i !1 ~ ~ ~ 'I ', i i ~~~ ij I, r ~ •' .' - ._ ._ _ a1~ 04/12/94 10:07 $208 343 7830 ACRD ~+-~ HIIBBLE ENG. f~012!012 ii~ds a ,~~ si 1•, ~~ ;~ ;~1 '~> yl i'i~ < 8 1 ? a ., ;- '=~'~ -_ J' i} '~'s ~ 'i~~~.`l :J r~l)I gyn. y~9F~ a `~. {1 y r YY ` ~ [~ 1! y~ i i - ~ F~ -~\~ ' "1'11 i~`'i N i I 9 yI~ `..~/ _ ,; sail =i o ; \ L-r-~~./ li I~i _ ~, o ' 11 >t C 7. it 11 ~.~ 71 ~ ~ •, r `` a e• v a a A~I '' "S"a • . i~ 1 I ~ ~ii ~d `~\~ ~ a _ ~ a ~ ~"~~ ~~Y ~ a ~~~ T~- F '~ 9~ i a.H `S R ~ - 3 i i ~ All ~1' ~~ r=~l~ ~~~5'~~~: ... .vl u..i _ _.. ~ '..- .'cwt i. I. ti~ S '.ij! ~ 11 .~I a ~ ~ ' ~ • 19 7 ~ a{ II , :1, .`fir ~~ ~r { y D ,, 1 i 3 ~ ~ ' ' ; II ` ~ `¢;igcnsy~~~~~J i~ ~ = i ~ 3 ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ i ya: ~ \-j=r-~~s p r` I' 5 X11 ~~_~~~~~ f ~ ~ ~ _' I ~ 9 ~~~,~ ~ ~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~: r'j~ ~ I rl il' ~I ~~ ~ 'teary y.P~ a ~~ ~,1 ~~ ~~; ~ ~ : ~ ;~;I ' i~' ': ~~ ~ ,_ i i ,' ~ ~~ 9 III