1994 09-13
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1994:
(APPROVED)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REZONE REQUEST
BY MARTELL PROPERTIES: (APPROVED)
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE BY TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER:(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS BY BOND
CAMPBELL: (APPROVED)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE
BY JUDITH SCHANCE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WEST ONE BANK:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
7. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/ ZONING FOR PNE/ EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 11, 1984)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDMSION BY ALLAN
CHANDLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES (?F PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1994:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FO~A REZONE~REO~U~EST
BY MARTELL PROPERTIES: C1-~v°~I ~~ • ~~
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE BY TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER: 'r ~= /L L
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER: 1' ~ /C~
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TFJ~ HOLLOWS BY BOND
CAMPBELL: ~~~~,.Ll ~~^~~
5. PUBLIC HEARING
BY JUDITH
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. PUBLIC HEARING
CONSTRUCTION:
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE
SCHANCE: ~ ~ /~ L
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WEST ONE BANK:
lC~
ANNEXATION! ZONING FOR PNE/ EDMONDS
~-~~A c-vJ.y C~ ~~~t ek.~^1 i i,199 '-1
8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ~ 1 ~L_
9. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDMSION BY ALLAN
CHANDLER: ~= /~ Z
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13 1994
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Anna Doty, Larry Sale,
Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Floyd and Kathy Reichert, Ted Hepper, Shirley Schy, Tyler
Rountree, Billie Jo Premoe, Vern Alleman, Bob Howe, Scott Wendell, Fred Steinbroner
and Son, Dennis Brandshaw, Marc and Cathy Peterson, Butch Suor, Susan Smith, Gordon
Slyter, Val Elg, Judith Schance, Richard Brown, Doug Moss, Ted Hutchinson, Albert
Dauven, Dennis Reichert, Mick Davuen, Don Bryan, Rick Schultzmier, Burt Borup, Sheryl
Howe, Mike Wardle, Jim Merkle, Allan Chandler:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1994:
Johnson: You have read the minutes are there any corrections, deletions or additions to
these minutes? I entertain a motion for approval.
Alidjani: I make a motion we approve the minutes.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REZONE
REQUEST BY MARTELL PROPERTIES:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact that you have before you as
prepared by the City Attorney?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I have 2 suggested changes in the findings of fact and conditions
as written. On page 5, item #t3, the last part of that sentence, I suggest that it be re-
worded that since the use of the properties are not specifically known any uses and
(inaudible) for the property shall be submitted for review by the City Staff for code
requirements and delete the reference to design review. And on page 6, the last sentence
of the recommendation and shall be subject to review by City Staff and delete the
reference to design review.
Johnson: Very good, are there any other changes or discussion regarding the findings of
fact? If there are none I will entertain a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 2
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared with the 2 changes suggested by Commissioner Rountree, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you which to pass onto the City?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezoning
requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that the property be required
to meet the comments of the Meridian departments and other governmental agencies and
shall be subject to review by City staff.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass the decision and recommendation as read onto
the City with the one change, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE BY TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER:
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I request to step down for a potential conflict of interest.
Johnson: That would be for item 3 as well?
Rountree: Yes
(Chairman Rountree steps down}
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative from the applicant
or the applicant that would like to address the Commission at this time please come
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 3
forward.
Gordon Slyter, 2162 East Katelyn Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Slyter: You have before you our request for both a rezone and a conditional use permit
in regard to 2 parcels of ground at the intersection of Meridian Road and Spicewood Drive.
Our hope is to build a church building on the northern most of those 2 pieces of property.
And to do this its currently zoned residential R-4 in the City of Meridian and we are
requesting a rezone to L-0 Limited Office which does allow church facilities. In
conjunction with that we are also requesting a conditional use permit with the intentions
that we would hope to open a day care pre-school to be operated in the church facilities.
Not using additional buildings but in the church facilities. And that is the summary of our
request the only other things I would like to say is we hope to be a positive beneficial
addition to the community of Meridian and we see ourselves as team players with the City
and its growth and development. We certainly want to comply with the master plan that
was revised in the last 3 months. And comply with all of those guidelines.
Johnson: Thank you, there may be some questions of the Commission? Any questions
for the applicant's representative?
Alidjani: Any other use for this Limited Office that you are asking for beside the church
use?
Slyter: No, just for the church and parking.
Johnson: Any other questions?
Crookston: How many children would you anticipate in your day care?
Slyter: We anticipate licensing for 48, but our business plan shows operation with 36
children. But the maximum would be 48.
Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else like to address
the Commission on this application?
Tyler Rountree, 99 West Christfield Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rountree: We live just to the north of the property that they are proposing to build a
church on. The property right now is zoned R-4, exactly like what we are living on. We
purchased the property knowing that is what the property was designated to be and would
like it to be left that way. To go ahead and continue to be houses. The developer on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 4
phase that we live in subdivided the property so that it could be used really well as far as
running the street all the way to Meridian Road. And the way that he subdivided that
property I could see where there could be a conflict as far as putting houses on it. But he
was the one who was the developer he got to call the shot in the beginning and he called
it R-4. I think it should be left that way.
Alidjani: I've got a question, any specific reason why are you opposing this project?
Rountree: Well, basically when we bought the lot we bought it on the pretense that it
would never be commercial property, it would always be residential. That is basically why
I am opposed to it.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Rountree? Anyone else from the public that would
like to come forward?
Shearer: Jim do you remember why did they make those lots so big in that, do you recall?
Johnson: I don't
Shearer: It seemed to me that there was talk of putting town houses in there.
Alidjani: (Inaudible)
Shearer: But when they first did the subdivision (inaudible)
Johnson: Do you recall anything Wayne?
Crookston: 1 don't
Johnson: Anyone else from the public before I close the public hearing on this? Seeing
no one then I will close the public hearing. Discussion, what is your pleasure?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we have the City Attorney to draw findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law for this rezone request, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 5
ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TREASURE VALLEY
WORSHIP CENTER:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there any additional testimony that the
applicant would like to make with respect to the Conditional use permit? Is there anyone
from the public that would like to address the Commission on the conditional use permit?
I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do?
Alidjani: I would make a motion that we have the City Attorney draw findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the conditional use permit for Treasure Valley Worship Center, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS BY BOND
CAMPBELL:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman I need to step down.
(Commissioner Hepper steps down, Commissioner Rountree returns)
Van Elg, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Elg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here representing Bond Campbell
for the subdivision known as The Hollows. It is located on Ustick just to the west of Locust
Grove near Summerfield Subdivision as it is called. I've got a little sketched out drawing
here for you to take a peek at. We are in the process of rezoning and developing this
property. The zone that we are requesting is for R-4 zoning. However we are developing
the entire project with R-3 standards. The minimum lot size here, I don't believe any lot
is less than 12,500 square feet. There are 13 lots, we have reviewed the subdivision with
Shari Stiles and we have received the comments from Gary Smith and discussed those
with him. We do not have any particular concerns with any of those comments as Gary
and I have discussed them. We reviewed the application with ACRD to discuss the
culdesac and the stub street location here. It has come to our attention this evening that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 6
Mr. Hepper apparently, Tim Hepper's father has property immediately to the east of this
site. And his property line apparently comes down here within 10 feet of the edge of our
proposed stub street. Which leaves him in a little bit of a quandary as to how he will
proceed with development of his property. We have looked at and discussed with him out
in the foyer the potential of moving this stub street down leaving the culdesac where it is
but moving the stub street down here. It doesn't appear that we will lose any lots in the
trade, it will help Mr. Hepper out and I don't see any real particular problem with that. We
would be glad to look into that issue and present that change to the City Council if you
folks make that recommendation.
Johnson: How big of a move would you be talking about in terms of feet?
Elg: It looks like we are going to be shifting this down about 123, 112 feet.
Shearer: Basically just moving that one lot over.
Elg: Yes, we would just flip-flop the lot basically. We will still meet the frontage
requirements for that. We will review this with Gary and Shari to make sure we can
comply with that and make sure we are not in violation of anything. 1 don't believe that we
are as t reviewed the ordinance very quickly over that. As I stated though each of these
lots would be designed to a higher standard than the zone allows. We are also providing
landscape lots along the front as requested by Shari, there is a slight meander to this. We
are looking at the potential of bringing sewer in from the UsticklLocust Grove intersection,
it will be on city sewer and water.
Johnson: Okay, any questions of the engineer?
Rountree: On the drawing it looks like you have distinguished between the lots and the
structures on that first lot on Ustick will the rest of the structure an that lot be removed?
Elg: Eventually they will be I suppose, Mr. Campbell uses those right now and when he
gets to the point where he wants to sell those lots off they will have to be removed: or they
will remain unbuildable. We have tried to situate these lot lines such that they won't be
in violation in ant setbacks also.
Alidjani: The other stub street would be between which lot and which lot after you relocate
them?
Elg: Actually what we will end up with is Lot 9 and 10 on this side.
Alidjani: So the stub street would be between 10 and 11?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 7
Efg: It would be right here? This lot will shift over and we will have the stub street right
here if that works out.
Alidjani: Then the stub street would be between Lot 10 and 11.
Elg: This is Lot 1 so this would be 10 and 1.
Alidjani: Thank you
Elg: We will have to re-number these lots here.
Alidjani: But after you get done it would be between 10 and 1?
Elg: Yes, that is what it looks like.
Johnson: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much, we will give you an
opportunity for rebuttal if you need it. Anyone else from the public that would like to
address the commission on this application?
Ted Hepper, 1440 East Ustick, was swum by the City Attorney.
Hepper: I am here on Mr. Campbell's subdivision. I don't have any problem with it I think
it will be a real nice subdivision. The only thing I have a problem with is what he stated
on that street. I have no objection if he will change that street. The way it is set up now
am going to end up with a 12 foot deep lot and it is a little hard to build on. So if he
agrees to move that street, he won't lose any land by that and it would make it a lot easier
for me to some day subdivide my place.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Hepper?
Alidjani: As you said it is about 112 feet from one end to another.
Hepper: Yes
Johnson: Any other people, anybody else who would like to address the commission on
this application? Staff are there any ramifications with moving this street that we should
be aware of at this time? Let the record show no. I will now close the public hearing then.
What would you like to do?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 would make a motion that we pass a favorable
recommendation onto the City Council on the proposed preliminary plat with the changes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 8
that were identified by the developer this evening.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the city
Council on this preliminary plat for the hollows, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE
BY JUDITH SCHANCE:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is either Judith or a representative here to
address the Commission.
Judith Schance, 1050 W. Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schance: What I want to do is open a family day care at this address. What I planned on
doing was having up to, I wouldn't think about 3 or 4 children to take care of. The family
day care allows 5 children or less. This is what I was planning on doing. I also said that
if 1 was allowed to do this I would put a fence in between the 2 properties just so it would
contain the children in the back yard.
Johnson: Is there anything else?
Schance: Not that I know of.
Johnson: Any questions of the applicant?
Rountree: What age group are you looking at?
Schance: Up to 4 years.
Rountree: Infant to 4 years?
Schance: Yes
Alidjani: What hours?
Schance: Probably during the day time, it would probably be from say 6 to approximately
5 or 6. It would depend on the hours the parents had to work.
~ i
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 9
Rountree: Weekends as well?
Schance: No
Rountree: Monday through Friday then?
Schance: Just Monday through Friday.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions?
Rountree: Are you currently sitting children there?
Schance: I have one, he is my grand son.
Crookston: Are you licensed by Health and Welfare at this time?
Schance: Not yet, 1 thought I would progress you know, and get a license.
Crookston: But you will?
Schance: I will yes.
Hepper: Would you have any problem being restricted to week days not on weekends?
Schance: No I wouldn't have any problem.
Hepper: Any hours so that you are not baby sitting in the evening or did you intend on
baby sitting in the evening?
Schance: I didn't plan on it, unless it is my grand son but that is probably, they are a little
unpredictable sometimes.
Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there someone from the
public that would like to come forward and address the Commission?
Richard Brown, 1035 W. Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brown: My wife and I discussed it after reading the first letter. I have a question we had
originally, I don't have the original letter, originally I thought that it was a number
something like 12, does the Council have an original letter with the number of children that
it was originally thought to be? I could be wrong I am just asking. 1 guess what I wanted
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 10
to say is just that my wife and I moved to Meridian and we moved here for a couple of
reasons, one we like the area. And in picking the area that we did in the Misty Meadows
subdivision more specifically the culdesac we moved into, we moved in there to kind of
avoid the mainstream. We wanted to get away from the comer lots, get in a little bit so
there is less traffic. And so my idea is that I am kind of against it because it may increase
our traffic level and at the same time if my wife and I ever decide to sell our home in the
future real estate wise I don't know how large an effect or small an effect that may have
on it. And that is the 2 reasons that my wife and I are opposed to it.
Johnson: Did you submit a letter to the City?
Brown: Yes sir.
Johnson: This is your letter before us.
Brown: I sent a letter to Shari Stiles.
Johnson: Yes we have that in our packets. Now this, correct me if I am wrong Wayne, but
this particular application Accessory is only applicable to 5 or less, is that not true.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: So it couldn't be any more than 5. Thank you very much Mr. Brown. Anyone
else?
Doug Moss, 1055 West Kingswood Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Moss: Well, right in our Misty Meadows covenants it says that there will be no business
in the subdivision. I didn't buy my house to have a business run across the street. And
don't want it across the street. I don't want a bunch of kids in my neighborhood, because
don't like them. Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time.
What would you like to do.
Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on
this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 11
fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WEST ONE BANK
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there a representative of West One that
would like to address the Commission on this application?
Scott Wendell, 1221 Shoreline Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wendell: We are asking the Board for an approval on a conditional use permit on a drive
through for the West One bank on Cherry Lane. We have already submitted for the
Planning and Zoning rezone R-8 to an L-0 zone. That was approved earlier on in the year.
So this conditional use is for the drive through only. And we have no problems with the
comments that were listed and sent to us from the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Although vre have no comments from the City Engineer or the City Planning Director. We
might ask are those ready.
Johnson: Well, they are on record I believe as saying they have no comments. Gary Smith
has a letter, we have in our packet no comment from City Engineer so apparently they
have no problem with it.
Wendell: Well, then we will just ask for approval based upon the comments that we have.
Johnson: Any questions of the applicant?
Rountree: Do you have a layout of the drive through window?
Wendell: We have submitted something and I believe they have it. There is actually no
drive through window per say, it is a (inaudible) delivery system.
Rountree: Would you stick some arrows on this for me please.
Shearer: Which way do they go?
(Discussion Inaudible)
Rountree: They will be travelling it appears through the windows or through the pneumatic
system from West to East no from East to West.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 12
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else like to
comment on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We need
findings of fact and conclusions.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we have the City Attorney draw findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have the City Attomey prepare findings
of fact and conclusions of law for the conditional use permit for West One Bank all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the representative for the applicant would
like to address the Commission please do so.
Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Hutchinson: We are representing the applicant in this case which is Pacific Northwest
Electric and Edmonds Construction. We are seeking annexation of about 22 acres of land
which lies northeast of Chateau Meadows #8 and to the east of Chamberlain Estates.
Presently we don't have a development plan we are working out some logistics concerning
access. Provision of sewer and water for this particular site and as soon as we get those
things covered we will be bringing forth the development proposal for this site. We are
asking that you rezone this R-4 which is compatible with the existing and proposed
development that is occurring in the area. For instance Chateau Meadows is zoned R-8,
there is another development application southwest of this that is about an 1/8 of a mile
southeast which is also going to be coming shortly before this commission. Also for R-4
so the zoning will be appropriate for the area. As I stated we are trying to work out some
logistics concerning access. Part of it with Chamberlain Estates in extension of the
streets. We are also working on an internal street system which would provide access to
Ustick Road and to other accesses while recognizing that Wingate Lane has its own set
of problems and we are trying to avoid exacerbating the problems existing at that site. We
are going to be contacting those people just to get their general feel about the
development in that area. If there are any questions from the Commission I would like to
answer them at this time.
~J
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 13
Johnson: Any questions?
Hepper: Have you seen the comments from the City staff?
Hutchinson: Yes, I have and I have no problem with the comments that we have seen.
Hepper: You have also seen the ones from Ada County Highway District?
Hutchinson: Yes, we have had a meeting with the Ada County Highway District and when
the development plan comes in it will be in compliance with their goals as well.
Hepper: What is the density, it is R-4 that you are asking for, what is the actual density,
do you have any idea?
Hutchinson: We don't have the actual density figured out yet. Part of the plan is to
accommodate the existing house on at least an acre so we are trying to mix some of the
lot sizes in there. We will have some larger estate sized lots. But with the smallest being
the minimum of 8,000 square feet. But we are trying to at least mix it in there so we can
at least provide a nice development in that area.
Shearer: You said you didn't have any problem with providing a bike path and pathway
through that area as part of your subdivision?
Hutchinson: We recognize that the Comprehensive Plan has indicated that the pathways
are interconnected and we are, the preliminary plans that we have seen so far are going
to provide for some park space and some interconnections for bicycle pathways through
the development.
Rountree: Define an estate sized lot.
Hutchinson: Well, we are proposing that the existing house will be on at least an acre so
we will try to keep them in that neighborhood. A few of the lots that will be right around
the house, the existing house and to the north of that. So we are talking anywhere from
half to a full acre.
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, we will give you an opportunity to
come back. Anyone else from the public like to address the Commission?
Butch Suor, 2550 North Meadow Glenn, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Suor: I am presently residing in Chateau Meadows and right now we are on the back line,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 14
we have a nice view of Bogus Basin and what have you and we realize that development
will go on, but one concem of mine. I would like to see, if it is going to be approved as R-4
would like to see it limited to single level housing. In other wrords I don't want second
story houses going up and blocking most of my view that I bought the house originally for.
Another concern when the engineering does go in there is a waste water problem in that
area as far as irrigation. And on the northeast wrner of Chateau Meadows they are
effectively using the Ada County Highway Departments pipe to waste water for irrigation.
It is back feeding the street dry wells in between the houses including my own. Which is
raising the water table during irrigation system season. And we do have water problems
from time to time. I see this as an opportunity of bringing all those ditches together
because when Chateau Meadows was developed it was on one side of the fence and this
property is on the other side of the fence so they had double waste ditches and so they
tiled one. But environmentally Idon't particularly care for street drainage being tied
directly to irrigation water. I think this is a direct no no. But it is a situation that I would like
to go on record now to be addressed at the time the engineering goes in. I think it is an
opportunity that whole south line is a waste ditch and it is an opportunity to bring all of that
together and actually put it underground and we can be done with it. But that is the only
2 concerns that I had. Like I say it is R-4 but I would like to see single level housing in
there only.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else?
Bob Howe, 2194 East Lochmeadow Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Howe: I am with Mr. Suor, I am in the same area, same line. The situation with the waste
water is very important as you well know. Most of you, Wayne knows, in the past we had
a problem with the waste water situation. The irrigation backed up underneath our houses
and we had to put french drains in and those kind of things. So that is very important to
us as well. I do agree 100°~, the only reason I bought that lot was my understanding from
the owner of the land behind us that he didn't plan on selling. Of course life goes on and
people make decisions. I would like to see single level houses at least in the end where
our houses are so we can have the view that we have now. Those are the main reasons
that we bought that land. I don't want anybody living behind me, if it does come in and
things happen who knows I might sell. Another thing too is I am a hunter, I enjoy hunting,
and I watch the foxes run in the back fields there and hunt. I think there is a house or a
home or burrow or whatever you call it in that area some place along that waste ditch. I
think those foxes need to be caught and moved before the division starts into the place.
Exactly where they are I don't know but I do know that they run west and east through that
field. I think we should look into that before we move on. That is all I have.
Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 15
Alleman: I guess I am here just mainly to gain information. I understand that this is for
annexation and zoning. My concern is when the plat is made and all of that. Will there be
another hearing and will I be notified of that? So I can make comments at that time.
Johnson: When we get a specific plat of the lot sizes and design and configuration then
you will get noticed again, is that correct?
Crookston: Yes
Alleman: Well that is my concern. And then that will also inGude where streets and sewer
and all of those things are. Those things affect me and that is why I am concerned about
it.
Albert Dauven, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dauven: Well, I live right I guess basically across from the access road that the house that
they were talking about that they are going to leave there on 1 acre. And when they built
that house we were not noted through County zoning or anything. Off Wingate Lane the
County Zoning agreed that there would be no more access off it. I guess what I am here
for is just to make sure that this is recognized by all parties and everyone. I think you will
hear from a lot more people down the lane that we want a berm hill and a fence and we
want it maintained. Because you put a bunch of houses backed up to Wingate Lane and
they have automatically got an alley. So we have to stop it because the kids, where the
ditch line goes through the half mile section between Eagle Road and Wingate Lane all
the kids use that as a motorcyGe trail and bicycles and what have you. We have livestock,
horses and stuff like that and you bring a bunch of city kids out there and you are just
asking for a bunch of trouble. So I think that, 1 am not against the subdivision all I am
saying is that lane has to be protected. There is not a real good way of protecting it other
than making it so they cannot make a driveway into their backyard through it. Because
once they do it its too late. And that is about all I have to say.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Billy Jo Premoe, 3045 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Premoe: I wanted to follow up on what AI said. We all who belong to the road association
on Wingate Lane would like to state very clearly that we would like to maintain the private
lane status that we have at this time. (End of Tape) We would like to preserve the privacy
status of our road. We have a road association and provide the funds to maintain that
road. And we do that even though we don't like to do because we like the benefits that
come with having a private road. We do like the type of life we have their. We like the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 16
rural situation, the quietness. We would really like to preserve that. When we see
subdivisions backing up against it we really want to make it clear that we want some
safeguards for our privacy. The things that we bought our land for and their are about 10
families that alf feel I believe the same way on this issue.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I am somewhat opposed to this subdivision because we do have a situation
developing in Ada County in its self with the growth going on or traffic of schools, our
water situation. And so I think we need to take a look, I don't think we need to have to do
a lot of studying (inaudible) because there are a lot of material out there to know that we
have problems. But on top of that I have to agree with these people on Wingate Lane that
Ada County we went before them and they said that there would be no more access to that
lane. So if you put a subdivision in there we want that harmed off with a fence clear across
and around that subdivision so we don't have a problem. I have a stub coming into my
property along the south side and I do have motorcycles, 4 wheel drives and they go down
there and they hit my fence and they have told me and they throw trash out. And so I say
if you do rezone this for a subdivision that a fence goes clear across so they can't go into
Wingate Lane. And so we don't have this problem. We have a lot of people on there now
to help maintain the lane and we can't have any more traffic on it. So that is about all
have to say.
Johnson: Mr. Sharp, is your property the most southerly on Wingate?
Sharp: Yes
Johnson: Are you on the east or west side of Wingate?
Sharp: I am on the west side.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Floyd Reichert, 2575 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Reichert: I rise in favor of the annexation. I have some things to say that the negativity
out there on that lane is tremendous. And I do not want to see the impact come onto what
this Wingate Road Association in my opinion which is illegal. If you go down to the
courthouse in Ada County, I believe the year is 1913 the land owners on the northwest
comer dedicated 15 feet on the east side of that subdivision and all of those successors
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 17
would be bound to that easement. I would like to see that easement kept open and any
landowners that success that property have full access to that property and do not impact
me on that by closing that off in a restriction. Legally I think they have that right. There
are people that live on the east side of that land that have never dedicated a foot that have
impacted that lane tremendously on what is set out there. They won't widen it and so the
more growth you get out there we get into a real chaos. I would like to see 2 story houses
because 1 have a 2 story house and I don't want to have the only 2 story house out there.
I don't think there should be any restrictions put on the homeowners that buy in that area
that they need a one story or 2 story. 1 rise again in favor of the annexation with no
restriction to Wingate Lane of those successors because they own part of that lane or
bought into it. That is recorded at the Courthouse and 1 can get that road agreement if you
would like.
Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I find this afl very interesting. 1 find it very hard to believe that even Meridian
Planning and Zoning would grant any kind of a zoning change with the generalities that
we are offered tonight by the person that wanted this. There was nothing concrete,
nothing definite. It was we plan, we plan and we plan. I think something definite should
be in the making before any of us agree to anything. I would like to have that considered
very strongly. Another thing today, I took upon myself to call 3 local realtors because I
didn't' think that we needed to by yes and by golly what was happening. Those of us that
live in the immediate area know what the building has done, we know what it has done to
the traffic, the schools and everything else. But nobody cares and nobody listens. They
say they are listening but they don't' hear. (Inaudible) there are going to be studies on
Locust Grove, we have yet to hear the results of any of those studies other than the fact
that we have right and a partial 3 lane road from the subdivisions to Fariview Avenue. It
has done nothing to cut traffic it has done everything to increase traffic. We have not
heard how many houses this (inaudible) ad we do know because of what was told that
there is going to be additional requests for subdivisions in that same area. I am saying
what about the definite for a park, the green belt. As far as Wingate Lane and the
easement and the accessibility it is a private lane and those on the lane mostly have taken
care of it. As far as not being legal I am sure we can have an association if we want to
take care and maintain that lane. Not just for the dust but if you have gone up and down
a private you know what it can do to a vehicle and the alignment. Everything else, I just
cannot believe that you would expel you to (inaudible) or annexation with the generalities
he has given you. Anybody can give you that little bit of information. Another thing is so
many of the requests that have been denied, I (inaudible) what the Comprehensive Plan
is, I have never heard other than the fact that there is one. Dces this or do these particular
zone changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan? (Inaudible) We do know the kids
cannot go into the (inaudible) Chief Joseph School (Inaudible) because it is overcrowded
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 18
already and they are bussing them. Here again (inaudible) take the responsibility of what
is happening. They say okay you can go to the school, as a builder as a developer as a
realtor, these are the joys you get for building and living here and that is not true.
(Inaudible) who has to take responsibility for granting these things that are not in fact
truths. The children cannot go to that school, they have to be bussed, there is a sign on
the door, no more students for Grade 4. (Inaudible)And we are talking about the sewer,
we are talking about the (inaudible) lawsuits because of the drain off. The developer, the
builders, the realtors they knew this, but who cares. I live on Wingate Lane and I have
lived there for practically 30 years and I for one am opposed to this wild growth (inaudible).
Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Susan Smith, 3020 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Smith: I too would like to maintain the private lane quality that we have enjoyed since we
have lived there the last almost 10 - 11 years. I guess for me personally I do not oppose
the proposed subdivision. I do have some natural feelings about what is going on around
us but I don't' have any, 1 would have any grounds for that. I would prefer that there not
be any usage of Wingate Lane to either facilitate the building of that subdivision nor usage
after the subdivision is in. We are a narrow, dirt road. Massive bumps, there come times
it becomes difficult to drive up and down that lane. There is some equipment going up and
down that lane for usage now and it makes a big difference in the quality of the road. It
is a very informal road association that we have. We try to operate as inexpensively as
we can. It seems to be the need of everybody on that lane and yet we have to do
something to maintain some kind of road quality. We are fortunate enough to have some
people that live on that lane that do the work free of charge. So my purpose I guess is just
to see that the road not have any additional usage to facilitate this subdivision in any way.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Mick Dauven, 2820 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dauven: Mine is going to be real short too. I just would like to comment on the growth in
the area and make sure that somebody has a plan. You have this subdivision, you have
another one tonight. There are 2 or 3 that are in the development stage. It is getting
pretty big out there, the infrastructure is getting real crowded. Hopefully there is a master
plan out there that is going to take some of this iMo account. That is all the comments that
I've got.
Johnson: Thank you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 19
Shirley Shy, 2425 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shy: I opposed the subdivision because there is enough traffic on that lane. I have lived
on that road for 27 years and we have plenty of traffic on that road. I think there should
be more consideration of the lane. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you
Mark Peterson, 2700 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Peterson: We live on the property directly across the street from where the majority of the
subdivision is going to be located. When we got the building permit granted we were
pretty well assured that we were the last ones on the lane that had a buildable lot and that
the lot sizes for anyone on the lane had to be at least 5 acres. So, my concern is that I
think we need to maintain the berm like they said or limit access to the lane. And possibly
consideration if they are going to go through with the subdivision to limit the lot size on
what is adjacent to Wingate to possibly 5 acres. I realize the development is going to have
to go on, I am in the construction industry myself. We were under the impression when we
moved out there that we were going to have a country setting and that the lot sizes were
going to be fairly big for the houses. The impact of high density housing in that area, you
have already heard about. You need to take that into consideration.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Don Bryan, 2070 N. Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bryan: I wasn't planning on talking again tonight, but I have to. These people used to be
my neighbors before we got the 1500 houses built up between. Two of which were Butch
and his neighbor which are blocking my view of my neighbors. No development is going
to have them but what we have going here is these people are fighting the access to their
road, which I don't blame them a bit they have a nice road out there and it would be nice
to keep it a country lane and protect them with our Comp plan that we worked on and the
proper berming and fencing and things that we were trying to control the quality of life
beiween the agricultural and residential. It would be a good opportunity to put that in the
works. My concern is mainly the traffic flow. We are building up a lot of houses in that
area and we are closing it all in the center of that section. And the main access for all of
that traffic is going out to Locust Grove through Chateau Meadows and the Chateau Lane
which is the main feeder. The reason I am talking tonight is to put my bid in early tot he
developer and the people that are working with the developer to start looking at a way to
put that traffic flow out to Fairview Avenue and eliminate some of this traffic on Locust
Grove that is going to be, it is already out of control. And with the development by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 20
church property we are starting to close that off too so maybe it is too late to even look at.
But we need to start getting that flow out towards the main arterial which is Fairview
Avenue and not Ustick Road or Locust Grove Road. And the developments that are under
way now the problems, I deal with problems on almost all other subdivisions but initially
that was a halfway plan to connect Wingate Place and Dove Meadows and the back part
of Kearney Meadows all coming out to Fariview. But the way they are developing it it isn't
happening. I don't know who dropped the ball or what is happening but they are going to
get locked in there and I don't know how many hundreds of houses are out there that are
all going to be going down Chateau Drive. I think that needs to be looked at right now
before it goes any further into the final or preliminary plat and they start the drawing
stages. It would save everyone some grief. Also, I have a problem with the drains, I
thought the drain was corrected but I guess it is okay to dump the road drains into the
irrigation canals because that is what is happening at chateau Meadows and when we
had, when Butch had his problem with the water out there in this particular parcel. We
looked at that, I thought there was going to be something done to correct that situation
because that is not a good situation. I don't know if it is legal or not, maybe Larry knows.
That needs to be addressed too as we proceed with development. They are just going to
the into that ditch that is there now and they are just going to keep feeding that street drain
right into the south slough. That needs to be addressed also. Does anybody have any
questions?
Johnson: Any questions of Don? Anyone else?
Rick Schuttzmier, 4105 North Five Mile, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schultzmier: Presently I live in Boise, my mom Dixie Roberts lives at 2855 Wingate Lane..
We moved out of Boise to get into a country setting and enjoyed the quality of life that is
out there. Since I have grown up I have had to move back into Boise into houses next to
me and unfortunately like most times we don't understand what we had before. The
people on the lane out there have a quality of life that needs to be preserved. I can see
that nowthat I moved in Boise and I would like to make sure you realize that is a private
lane and that it stays that way. I think it is very important to keep some of that around still.
That is basically all of the comments I have. Thank you
Johnson: Anyone else?
Burt Borup, 2640 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Borup: I don't have as many statements as I do questions. I think what is important to the
people on Wingate Lane is ultimately we all I think initially moved out there for the quality
of life and I am sure all of us wished that it had stayed the same. But we can't stop the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 21
growth and we are all aware of that fact. I think one of the biggest issues on Wingate
Lane is Wingate Lane, not necessarily the subdivisions or anything else. My question is
does this board have final jurisdiction on what happens to that lane?
Johnson: No
Borup: Who does?
Johnson: The City Council makes the final determination. The procedure is that at the
initial meeting of Planning and Zoning which we are at now we collect data which is your
opportunity as part of the public to testify and give us information and input. Following the
collection of that data then v~ have the City Attorney look at it for findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Which is nothing more than to address the issue legally. You know
is the application legal, can we zone it there if we wish. How does it stack up in the courts
with (inaudible).
Borup: Does this entity have the jurisdiction to say this remains a private lane or does not?
Johnson: No, and then it goes from the findings of fact and conclusions of law to the City
Council and that is the procedure. The City Council can make the final determination. did
you have something you wanted to say?
Shearer: If it is a private lane, I don't think
Johnson: We are not talking about a private lane, I thought we were talking about the
issue.
Shearer: He is talking about the lane.
Johnson: You want to take about Wingate Lane, Wingate Lane is not before us tonight.
Borup: I understand that but I am asking a question in as much as could you possibly tell
me what government entity has the final say so on saying whether Wingate Lane stays
private or public?
Johnson: I don't' know if we can, we will ask staff.
Borup: Will you pass this information onto the people possibly that could give us the
information?
Johnson: We may get that answer for you tonight, vre may not. We are not completed with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 22
this hearing yet and I am going to ask both ACHD and staff if they have comments on this
application since we have had so much input and they are both here tonight.
Borup: I guess it is of primary importance to everybody here that lives on Wingate Lane
that one government agency an actual dictating policy can say to us this is a private lane
as long as you do X,Y and Z it will remain a private lane. I think something needs to be
put on paper and possibly as Floyd pointed out maybe it already had, maybe a portion of
it already has. I am in the dark about a lot of things, and I have listed to and I have tried
to be a good listener to just about everybody on the lane. But it is of prime importance to
everybody on the lane of what happens to that lane. I realize that we are talking about a
subdivision and not the lane. If this entity doesn't have the ability to pass that ruling that
is understandable but t think everybody on the lane would like to know hard and fast black
and white where we stand. If we do this will we remain one? If not what are our
alternatives?
Shearer: (Inaudible) property owners request it I can't see how it could ever be a public
road.
Borup: Is there a situation where if the
Shearer: The County or City can't go in and take property from people. That thing is a
private road. Everybody here seems to be against this lane opening up and being public.
Johnson: Not everyone.
Shearer: But if it became a road and there was adequate stuff there and it was requested
from ACRD and they took it over you would end up with getting your road paved and etc.
Borup: I can attest to the fact that nobody has brought it up yet tonight but there is a real
and present danger either entering that road or exiting that road. I don't think anybody is
going to argue that fact with me that lives on Wingate Lane. And whether this subdivision
goes through or not with the amount of traffic that we have in that area, sooner or later, it
is going to take car wrecks or what is it going to take or who is going to. I am really lost,
I am befuddled as to is it just the property owners than? To the best of your knowledge
Mr. Shearer?
Shearer: If you guys own the property Mr. Attorney?
Crookston: Well, you already have the possibility that Ada County Highway District would
decide that needed to be a public road and even if the property owners didn't like it they
can condemn it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 23
Borup: Second question, let's say there is an accident involved with somebody exiting off
of Wingate onto Ustick that is a property owner on Wingate Lane and hypothetically
speaking this person is at fault. Is the person at fault responsible since he is a resident
of that lane and that lane posed a problem than is everyone on the lane at fault?
Crookston: Well, the predominant fault is going to be the operator of the vehicle.
Borup: I understand that, but
(Discussion Inaudible)
Borup: Is that a possibility speaking as an attorney?
Crookston: I really can't give you (inaudible).
Borup: I want to know everything that is involved in living on Wingate Lane from a legal
standard, from a government standard. We know it from a neighbor to neighbor stand
point. I think everyone on the lane pretty much plus or minus a point pretty much knows
what everyone on the lane thinks. I would also like it to be a situation where possibly a
document is drawn. Let's establish what can happen on Wingate Lane. If the subdivision
chooses to stub a road onto Wingate Lane can they cross Wingate Lane.
Johnson: I think we are getting a little off our subject here, I understand your concern and
I think that, I am assuming you have a homeowners association, you have a road
association. I vwuld think that is something you would want to know and you need to fair
it out. The agency that makes that determination, we may get you some information yet
tonight if you hang around.
Borup: One of the things is if they, I live directly across from a portion of this proposed
development, if they choose to stub a road off in my direction and I know how sensitive the
City is to landlocking any parcel of ground. Will in fact this be an exercise in futility, can
they cross Wingate lane at some time? And if so whose permission does it take, does it
take everyone on the lane's permission or does it take my permission or does it take my
permission or the subdivision across the street?
Johnson: Well, those are good questions, I am not sure we have those answers for you
tonight.
Borup: 1 didn't expect you to have the answers tonight. But I would like to be able to see
some of these things addressed before this thing goes to plat approval. That is all I have
to say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 24
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else?
Sheryl Howe, 2194 East Lochmeadow Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Howe: My main concern is the water, we had as a lot of people know, you guys all look
different up here, new people up here. We had like 6 inches of water under our house for
about 7 months. And they did a lot of research out there and it is clay. We need to have
that ditch behind us encased because it is going to be a mess if there are a lot of houses
back there. It is major, it is wet under our house now, there was almost a lawsuit over this.
Let's take care of this before it is a big mess.
Johnson: I don't' think we have had a change on this board in about 5 years. 1 think City
Council might be what you are thinking. Anyone else? I would like to see if the
representative from ACHD has any comments to make.
Larry Sale, 318 East 37th Street, Garden City, was sworn by the Ciry Attorney.
Sale: Do you have questions or do you want me to talk?
Johnson: If you can shed some light, enlighten the public with respect to private lanes and
or future plans and if you have any comments regarding water and I also plan to have the
City Engineer come fonnrard.
Sale: Wingate Lane is a private street, it is owned by some or all of the people who live
along it. There is no public agency that has any right to that street. It can become a public
right of way only under 2 situations I believe and one would be that the current owners of
the street vwuld request the highway district to accept it as a public road and in order for
that to occur the highway district would require that it be brought up to public road
standards before it would be accepted as a public road. Mr. Crookston was correct in that
if the highway district determined that there was an overriding public need for it to become
a public street. It could be acquired by the highway district. I don't anticipate that
o~urring. With regard to street run off mixing in the irrigation channels, we are allowed
under certain conditions to discharge storm water run off into certain water courses, not
all. We are allowed to discharge water after treatment into most of the drainage ditches
in the County not live irrigation ditches. While listening to the testimony I worked on a
vicinity sketch that we have here and it certainly isn't' gong to be good for the audience to
view. This is the existing public street pattern in the area. Subject property, there is one
street stubbed into it from the west out of this subdivision that I can't recall the name of
immediately to the west. There is a stub street out of I guess it is Kearney Place it comes
north up towards the property. There is another stub street out of the proposed
Chamberlain Estates Subdivision that is about 300 feet west of this property, a stub street
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 25
coming in from the west. I suspect that the highway district will require a stub street to this
parcel's north boundary. We will look at that canal and see how large it is. We will want
to get a street out to Ustick somewhere in here. A fairly major street actually that helps by
draining this property back out to the north. This is Hickory Drive that comes in through
Dove Meadows past the church, it comes up into this 40 acre parcel that has been, I think
it has been acquired by developers, they met a time or 2 with us. I think we would want
to see a street connection between this intervening area and that parcel so that people can
find their way out to the arterial system. Eventually we will have another collector coming
in from Eagle Road in this location somewhere. So the center of the section will be
directed out to the arterial. Unfortunately it has to wait until it is all pretty well developed
to do. Any other questions?
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Sale?
Rountree: There was indication of a requirement or possibility of stubbing a street into
Wingate Lane, a requirement to do that.
Sale: We will not require a public street connection to Wingate Lane or to put it another
way I don't think we would allow a public street connection to a private street.
Hepper: Would you allow a street stub to the east to cross Wingate Lane? Or would you
require one?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hepper, I suppose we would entertain that if it were
proposed. Certainly there is every right to extend a street across Wingate if it were needed
by somebody on the east side. I can't recall the development pattern on the east side,
those are all pretty large lots as I recall.
Johnson: Any other questions? Okay Larry we may need other comments if something
else surfaces. Gary Smith, City Engineer, do you have some comments you would like to
make regarding water? Is there anything you can help there with respect to that ditch
being tiled? It will be tiled, I know our ordinance calls for that. Nothing at this point, thank
you. The developer, would you like to make some comments after you have heard the
testimony?
Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again I am Ted
Hutchinson with Tealeys' Land Surveying. I have for illustrative purposes an Aerial
photograph (inaudible). This is the brown house as it sits on the parcel, (inaudible). This
is Wingate Lane as it extends down to provide access (inaudible). We have spent a great
deal of time examining this parcel and the access issues that are involved with it. We
looked at Wingate Lane and based upon our survey of that particular area when we just
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 26
simply drive down Wingate Lane and take a look at it. First of all it is a very narrow street,
there are numerous trees along one side, if that road were to be improved the majority of
those trees would have to be removed. And then there are a couple of houses that sit up
rather close and would actually end up in the public road right of way. As we looked at
that we recognized that particular access into that parcel would not be a wise choice. I
think that other ways iMo this particular parcel will be more convenient and actually better
serve this particular area. So it is not our attention to make the connection to Wingate
Lane. We also recognize that existing easements are in place for those persons that have
access both on the east side of the parcel and to the south of the parcel. And that the
access will have to be maintained for those individuals. We know that the Chamberlain
Estates is extending streets to the west and will actually abut our west property line that
are coming from the west to the east. And it will probably provide our first access points
out to the western portion of the property out toward Locust Grove. We are looking at
other options and as Mr. Sale indicated they are looking for an access point to Ustick road.
Since it is ACHD policy to require that all of the interior traffic from a section be funneled
through collector streets out to the major section line arterial. It is our plan to incorporate
that type of roadway system into this development. This isn't a Willy Hilly type of
development, we have spoken with your staff at great length concerning the requirements
out in this particular area. We have come up with a couple of proposals that we are just
looking at in the preliminary stages trying to plan for how this particular is going to grow
and in essence come up with a viable plan that is going to be workable and yet preserve
the existing neighborhoods and try not to have much impact on them. We have also
worked with Ada County Highway District trying to make sure we meet their requirements
providing access and public streets into the development. Listening to most of the
testimony they are concerned about the access onto Wingate Lane that is not our intention
to access Wingate Lane. We know the problems that exist out there, we don't' want to be
dumping any of the traffic from this development down that particular narrow pathway.
think that would take care of or answer most of the concerns that have been addressed
there. With regard to water, presently this site I believe is flood irrigated, as most parcels
of agricultural use they are flood irrigated. With development you will see a decrease in
that water use because we will go into a pressurized sprinkle system. And that will
hopefully eliminate or help alleviate some of the problems with existing high ground water
in that particular area. The homes on this site will be connected to municipal sewer, will
be connected to community water service. So we have tried to avoid any impact on
existing wells that are in that particular area. Again the only reason that you don't have
a proposal before you at this time is we are trying to work out the logistics of providing a
quality development that has good access. Obviously this is going to be a difficult parcel
to market because it doesn't have any access directly onto Ustick or any of the other mile
streets in that area. We have got to take care to make sure that we do come up with an
access point that is going to provide us with a quality entrance into the development.
(Inaudible) answer any questions that the Commission might have at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 27
Shearer: Do you know this water problem is that strictly a ground water problem or is this
irrigation water that has gotten away in that particular area. Is the ground water that
shallow in that section?
Hutchinson: Mr. Shearer I don't have any information to that effect. I believe typically Mr.
Smith requires the establishment of the ground water levels in the area so we will be
working toward that as required by the City Engineer.
Rountree: What is the time line on your proposal?
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, we are hoping to probably make the
next cut off date for submittal to the city staff. Our client has had people looking at
possibly purchasing the Brown parcel and they want to know how the subdivision
development is going to be laid out around that particular house to accommodate that
house. We want to move as quickly as we can yet trying to make sure we address all of
the issues as they arise.
Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public that hasn't commented that
would like to comment or an additional comment from anybody that has already been here.
Suor: In regards (End of Tape) water table out there, this was a low spot, part of this was
a low spot in Chateau Meadows at the time. And that problem was not addressed and
what happened is the developers and (inaudible) did some test holes and then
consequently what they did was broke the hard pan and gave this clay saturated soil and
ability to drain between the hard pan and clay, fine (inaudible) as of this year which we
had a dryer year than we did last year to my knowledge none of the people in question had
a water problem including myself. But what is happening here if I might show you the
existing, I started to talk (inaudible) is this waste ditch that comes out this northeast field.
This is the property line to the north of the property that is in question right now. There is
a waste ditch for irrigation that comes down here and incorporates the ACRD street
drainage pipe down through here to this box right here and then drains into a lost ditch that
goes along the west boundary of this property and into the south slough. What is
happening is this comes down here and the mud and whatever from the field is
contaminating these street dry wells. Because there is no separation of elevation of these
pipes, when they cut loose up here and drain into this field it comes down in here and fills
this drain up. And if I was AGHD (inaudible) in time they might have some worKthat they
might not want to do. And my personal feeling is this ditch pipe and this street drain
should be 2 separate pipes. The irrigation water should be separated from the street drain
water just to keep down contamination.
Johnson: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 28
Sharp: What he was saying as far as the water they were going to have a sprinkler
system am I to assume that is for all of the subdivision. Okay and he says that is not going
to affect any wells, where is he going to pump this water from? It is not from the ground
water.
Johnson: He is talking about a pressurized irrigation system which utilizes surface water,
isn't that correct? That is what our ordinance requires.
Sharp: Well, where is he going to get the surface water, that is going to be pressurized to
operate the sprinkling system?
Johnson: It comes through the ditches, the same ditches that are not to flood irrigate the
property.
Sharp: I see, and the other question I wanted to know. The person that he is representing
that owns this property was here not too long ago trying to get another zone, denied
because of the water problems and the hard pan. I wanted to know if anything had been
done to correct these problems and what they propose to do besides the sprinkler system.
don't know if I ask you that or if I am allowed to ask him.
Johnson: You have to address your questions through us, perhaps we will get an answer.
Sharp: We do know she was in trying to get the I think 17 acres next to her because of
these very problems. I want to knowwhat was done to eliminate the problems that we can
ad to them and make more subdivisions. And as I started to say earlier when I called
these realtors, the 3 of them in Meridian there are over 600 pieces of property available
new and used. (Inaudible) don't need more houses, there is certainly not a demand for
building. (Inaudible) repeating constantly I wnu-d like to see the Comprehensive Plan and
just how much building they intend to allow before they step back and look at the situations
have been addressed.
Johnson: Very good, I believe our Comprehensive Plan is now published, approved and
for sale, it is $25.00.
Sharp: Does it change with every subdivision?
Johnson: No, the wmprehensive Plan is a general guideline but it does talk about specific
areas that are intended in the overall residential. And of course there is no impotice put
on by the City to do that it is the property owners. But you need to read that because it
gives you a general guideline on what the City is trying to do. It iS a pretty comprehensive
plan. It is pretty lengthy.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 29
Alleman: I guess my question was I thought that I would be able to testify on these once
a plan was drawn.
Shearer: You will
Alleman: Is this the time to make comments on those kinds of things?
Johnson: You can make comments now because it is a public hearing but you will have
a better opportunity perhaps to get specific once we get a plan on what they are actually
going to put in when the plat comes before us. This would show streets, roads, size of lots
etc.
Alleman: I am deeply concerned about those and I thought that would be the time for me
to make my comments as to what those were and how they would affect me and what my
opinions was of those at that time. So I haven't put any input in regards to these things.
at this time.
Johnson: Well, you will get notified Vern.
Alleman: And that would be the appropriate time for me to comment.
Johnson: As a matter of fact at this juncture I would like to encourage all of you that
testified tonight to keep track of this, follow it through to the City so you get an opportunity
to go before the City Council on it when it gets there which will probably be sometime in
November at this point. Is that about right?
Shearer: You might comment too Jim that for some of the people's information that all of
this approval does is annex the ground. This thing still has to come back before this group
with a plat that has the actual lot, streets, etc and that is not approved at this time. That
is another phase.
Johnson: That is correct, anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing
at this time. What would you like to do?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, just for discussion purposes 1 would like to see since it is
eminent to the proposal that is being worked on by the developer for this project before we
work at preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law so we will at least have some
information to base conditions.
Johnson: What would you like to do?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 30
Rountree: I make a motion that vue table this item until we receive the conceptual proposal
at a minimum and possible a preliminary plat until our next regularly scheduled meeting
in October.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this matter until we get a more
definitive conception, until we get more information on what is actually going in here, is
there any discussion before we take the vote?
Shearer: Wayne, can't we make conditions on the plat, can't we go ahead and annex this
property and then when it comes in at the plat make the conditions on the plat? We don't'
have to hold it up for those conditions that are going to be on the plat anyway.
Crookston: It depends on what kind of conditions you want to make. The City including
the Planning and Zoning Commission has much more authority to place conditions at the
time of annexation then it does on the platting. They meet the ordinance requirements on
the plat and it has been annexed than that is all they have to do.
Shearer: That is all I wanted to know.
Johnson: Do we have any further discussion? We have a motion and a second, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson I would like to take a 5 minute break at this time.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
Johnson: Let's call the meeting back to order.
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for Brighton or
Ashford Greens Subdivision would you please come forward.
Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I have placed a slightly reduced scale
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 31
drawing of the same project you have seen over the past few months. In fact just a brief
update, several months ago the Commission recommended to the Council that the
southerly 24 acres of this parcel be annexed to the City with R-4 zoning. And also
recommended to the Council that the single family subdivision be approved subject to the
standards set forth in that R-4 zone. That item went to the Council at the same time there
was an application submitted to deal with some of the none standard aspects of the project
in the form of a variance request that dealt with the block lengths, with the lengths of some
of the culdesacs due to the design and the desire not to cross the golf course in too many
locations. Also dealt with some of the lot widths and so forth. At the action when all of
these issues came before the Council on the 16th of August it was all tabled essentially
pending a resolution of the overall issues and concerns on the parts of both parties. The
first party being the developer and the applicant, the confidence that they can go forth with
the total project in the future. And the second being that of the City of Meridian's desire to
affect the other nine holes of this long time proposed golf course. What we have
subsequently done was to re-submit the plan as it was taken to the City Council. There
were only 2 minor changes that occurred in the review process both by staff and through
the Ada County Highway Districts and other considerations. In addition there was one
negotiation with the Steiner Corporation who have I believe approved a project for the area
to the east which was the Fuller property. That particular issue related to the fact that
there had been a proposal in and around the future clubhouse location and the parking to
have some maintenance facilities. There had been maintenance facilities proposed there
for the golf course and through discussions it was concluded that the maintenance
facilities needed to be located in a more remote or obscure location and not right along a
major access point into their project. So it was concluded that they will have lots coming
up to that in addition there would be a slight exchange of consideration for a little bit of
their property and there would be 4 lots added where there had originally been some
parking and maintenance facilities. The other was, there other change that occurred in the
process was a stub street to the north that the Ada Gounty Highway District required in
order to assure that property in the future will have access when it develops. Because
they are restricted somewhat by the Eight Mile Lateral going through there, somewhat of
a triangular shape. They would have access both probably to Ten Mile as well as Black
Cat and to this subdivision. With those particular changes we did submit this for a
conditional use request and essentially the issues before the Commission that we are
asking to be passed onto the City Council so that all of the other items can be concluded
with respect to the annexation with respect to the dedication of the balance of the golf
course property. Let me just illustrate this also. In earlier discussions even before this
Commission when this was originally heard the question was raised about the disposition
or dedication of the golf course properties. The area identified as goff course north of this
line had previously through the purchase agreement by the Brighton Corporation has been
dedicated to the City. And that was park and parcel that dedication would not have
occurred but nevertheless occurred as part of their purchase of that land. The area south
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 32
of that line, all of that golf course land has not yet been dedicated and that is part of the
annexation requirement. So when all of this occurs and comes back to the City Council
with your recommendation as to what you feel the disposition should be for the Conditional
use permit. That final action will be part of the total package of exchange of that land or
dedication of that land and for all of the other elements of approval pertaining to the
subdivision and the future development of the medium density parcels. So the specific,
the request overall tonight is for approval under the PDR aspect of the ordinance and as
a conditional use permit for the project as it has been presented that encompasses the
single family dwelling lots, the medium parcels. Two of those parcels 14 and a half acres
and 12 and half acres, 27 acres total as vwell as the golf course element. We also in that
application requested approval of 228 single family lots some of which in the plans
submitted are approximately 75 feet in width. I didn't do the calculation but Mr. Smith in
the previous application had noted that about 36% of the lots were in the average of 75
foot widths. The balance of those lots either meet or exceed the ordinance. In addition to
the 228 single family lots wa are requesting conditioned upon approval for the medium
density parcels at the requested maximum density of 8 units to the acre or 216 dwelling
units. We have to state this evening that there is not a specific plan as yet submitted. We
realize that in the conditional use process you have the right and the obligation to put a
condition on those parcels that a specific development plan be submitted at some point
in the future that would have to come back to this Commission and I am sure eventually
to the City Council to receive site specific approval. At that point the specific density
aspect will be addressed. We know that in our request it could not exceed that that has
been requested it may be less depending on what the actual design is. And that approval
would have to bring bads elements again site specific elements relative to access interior
roadways and parking, extension of utilities open space and landscaping and any other
concerns or considerations that the City has. Nowwhen we submitted the application and
wa did have a meeting 2 weeks ago with the Mayor and with Mr. Crookston to discuss the
process and the elements of a PUD Conditional Use Application. We did submit and I
hope that the letter that is dated September 2nd was in your packet that recalculated as
a result of that meeting the density calculations. Very briefly if that was not included the
overall project acreage including the Fuller dedication was nearly 155 acres, we have
taken the Fuller dedication out of the calculation. Recognizing and discussions with the
Mayor and Mr. Crookston that the project would have to stand on its own without that
property. So the net acreage without the Fuller dedication being considered at 123.55
acres in the R-4 zone with a 4 unit per acre allowance could have 494 dwelling units on
the balance of the project. We are again submitting 50 units less than that than the
combination of 228 single family lots and the proposed density of 216 dwelling units on the
2 medium density dwelling units. We believe that the Commission in your conclusions and
findings can pass onto the Council a recommendation for approval subject to the return in
the future for those 2 parcels. We would also ask for your favorable recommendation with
respect to other elements. of the overall project that include the lots that are 75 feet wide
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 33
or less than the normal dimensional standards of the zone for 6 lots that are served by
private driveways, for just 2 flag lots and then for 3 culdesacs that exceed the normal
length of 450 feet and then block lengths which are in excess of the ordinance standards
because of the configuration on the golf course. I don't know that there is more that I need
to say unless you have questions because you have seen it before. There really are no
significant differences or changes, but I would be happy to respond to your questions.
Johnson: Mike, I may have missed this but did that meeting take place that you proposed
in your letter between the Mayor and Wayne Crookston, your letter was to Shari.
Wardle: Yes, Shari wes in that meeting as vuell, but we just met to discuss the process to
make certain that we understood how a conditional use application and a PDR would go
through the system, yes we did meet.
Johnson: Any questions of Mike Wardle? This is a public hearing is there anyone else
from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Seeing no one then I will close
the public hearing. Discussion?
Rountree: What is the status of this parcel, has it been annexed officially?
Stiles: Commissioner Rountree, Chairman, I believe they tabled it last time because they
are waiting to get the land for the golf course deeded to the City prior to annexing it.
Johnson: Is that your recollection Mike or Dave?
Wardle: That is correct, that is the reason that the whole thing is on the table. But let's
clarify that, the annexation issue was only for this southerly 24 acres,. all of the balance of
the project had already been annexed to the City previously.
Johnson: Does that clarify your question Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Yes
Johnson: Any other questions of the Commission, any discussion?
Rountree: On that portion that is related to the annexation that has been tabled, is that
going to go forth as a PUD zoning or is that going to be an R-4 zoning subject to a future
conditional use permit.
Crookston: It is proposed at R-4.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 34
Rountree: So we are looking at a conditional use permit for that as well?
Shearer: That is included.
Crookston: I believe that is included in all of it.
Rountree: So if the lower part has been annexed has it been zoned R-4.
Crookston: Yes
Rountree: And now they are asking for a PUD or a conditional use permit relative to the
R-4.
Shearer: We have already recommended approval on both the plat and the annexation.
And now we have to
Crookston: The conditional use application is for the planned unit development as an
entirety.
Rountree: Is that a zoning? Shouldn't it be zoned as a PUD then?
Crookston: No, we do not have a PUD zone. The PUD is in the subdivision and
development portion of our ordinances, not in the zoning ordinance.
Shearer: We really don't have a PUD do we?
Crookston: Yes, we have a PUD process.
Shearer: But I mean on this project we don't have a PUD, we just have a straight zoning.
Crookston: What they are asking for now is a conditional use permit for a PUD.
Shearer. We don't have a PUD, this is just a straight zoning right, we are asking for an R-
4and R-S basically zone.
Crookston: No, they are asking for a PUD on the entire area.
Shearer: If it is a PUD why are we putting in a conditional use that would be part of the
PUD wouldn't it, you wouldn't need a conditional use.
Crookston: Our ordinance requires a conditional use for a PUD.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 35
Shearer: Okay
Johnson: Any further discussion? Mr. Sale.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: I did close it but yes you can approach us we always appreciate your comments.
Sale: You may not this time, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the Highway
District is severely concerned over the possibility of a linkage between Interlachen Way
and I think it is Dawson Lane loop sVeet straight through the northwest part of this project.
We are concerned about a direct sVeet connection, I should qualify that . That is as odds
wit the City's goal and the overall plan to access the clubhouse location from Interlachen.
And I want to urge the City to carefully review future designs for this project to see if wee
can work together to get access to the club house without making a convenient cut through
between the 2 parts of the project. We are very concerned that this will then become a
direct route of traffic trough from Black Cat through to Cherry Lane. We have quite a few
dwellings that front on Interlachen and we already receive complaints over the traffic on
Interlachen and we find that when that traffic gets up to about a 900 to 1100 trips a day it
really starts becoming noticeably uncomfortable for the people that live along the street.
And also noticeably uncomfortable in our telephone ears. I hope the City and the Highway
District and the applicant can work together to design a circulation system there that will
avoid a through connection between the 2 parts of this project.
Rountree: Don't leave because I have a lot of questions about what you just said. It
seems inconsistent with the functional classification of Interlachen. Being functionally
class"rfied as a collector street.
Sale: Interlachen is classified as a collector not all the way to its end. (Inaudible) Mr.
Chairman, Commissioner Rountree also we are finding that those classifications that we
made a few years ago and allowed dwellings to front on collectors are now coming back
to haunt us. This is the functional street class map and this little purple line here
represents Interlachen, as you can see it heads off to the east, it kind of loops through and
back out to Ten Mile Road rather than coming through this way. We show a collector
coming in from Black Cat and just graphic form show that we want a collector coming out
of the center of the section of somewhere getting owt to Black Cat. The Northvvestem end
of Interlachen is a local street.
Rountree: For about a block.
Johnson: What was the question Charlie?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 36
Rountree: It is about a block and a half, the same line of reasoning with respect to traffic
cutting, with the ability of the local entities to control traffic speeds by signing theoretically,
(inaudible) has become a 35 mile an hour road. I suspect Ustick to the north, I suspect
Black Cat will and I suspect that when we get Cherry Lane done it will be as well. We now
have with this proposal a direct mid-section access with minimal interference to traffic to
short circuit going around the section. We talk about these things but we have built that
one it v~ill be there with this.
Sale: If, when we review the specific design of this area the multi family area if there is
no way to avoid a connection to Dawson then the Highway District will probably require
a deposit for speed reduction measures for Interlachen.
Rountree: How about for, I can't read the street names on here, that street there whatever
going to the east will basically be a straight shot to Ten Mile.
Sale: But it will carry traffic from the subdivision out to Ten Mile, it shouldn't develop
volumes in excess of 1000 trips a day.
Rountree: If you can't travel on the perimeter on the section roads anything more than 35
miles per hour why wouldn't people save half a mile. Because they are driving through the
neighborhood at 35 miles an hour even though it is signed 20 or 25. That is my concern,
I understand what you are saying Larry, but we use that excuse here but we have the
same situation someplace else and it is a poor excuse in those situations. We've got a
potential problem in that section the way it is set up. None of these roads through that
section have been designed to collector street standard like Chateau was at least through
portions of it.
Sale: Interlachen is for some of its length anyway.
Rountree: (Inaudible) there is frontage on the whole thing. (Inaudible) would be
(inaudible) landscape medians. But from that point east it is basically a residential street.
I just point that out that I don't' see a solution. It is incongruent with the arguments doing
something when we have allowed it to happen here.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, this I colored up a little bit better than the
last map I did, the street you are talking about is this one right through the middle of the
section. It doesn't' have the same benefit to travellers as a straight cut through from here
down to Cherry Lane would be. If they go through here they still have to make the same
distance down Ten Mile that they would have to do down Black Cat. So not being a traffic
expert 1 am not going to debate it with you but I think there is more of a problem with this
kind of a routing on through from Dawson to Interlachen than there is from the other street
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 37
which is Harbor Point and the main collector entrance into the subdivision.
Rountree: I agree with the advantage there but I see the potential for better access
through this section that is also a traffic generator.
Sale: We expect the streets in this project to be subject to speeding because of the long
lineal design but you can't have otherwise and still work around the golf course. And we
all want the golf course. We will hope to work things out so that we can minimize the
number of phone calls we get in the future. Any other questions?
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Sale? Thanks Lany, our public hearing has been
close are you ready for the discussion? We need some action.
Shearer. We need findings of fact on this? I move wee have the Attomey prepare findings
of fact and conclusions of law on this conditional use.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the conditional use permit for
Ashford Greens Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION BY ALLAN CHANDLER:
Johnson: Is Mr. Chandler's representative here?
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was swum by the City Attomey.
Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am here this evening on behalf of
the applicant Raven Hill Partnership and Allan Chandler who is also here this evening.
This application is for annexation with R-4 zoning on approximately 19.6 acres and
preliminary plat approval for 63 single family lots. This results in a density of about 3.2 lots
per acre. The project is located, I think there is a vicinity map in your packet about a half
mile south of Overland on the east side of Locust Grove Road. To the north of us in this
vicinity is the Rim View Subdivision which there are about 4 or 5 1 acre lots on the south
side of Charolais Drive (inaudible). There are a couple parcels to the west of this, this is
the Nine Mile Drain on the west side of the property, the Hunter Lateral on the east side
of the property. To the South of us is the Los Alamitos preliminary plat which I am not sure
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 38
what stage of the process that is in. To the east of us is the Sundance Preliminary plat
which has been before you and I think will be before you again. The applicant is
proposing home sizes with a minimum of 1400 square foot as was typical for the adjacent
subdivision and their approval. Access to the subdivision will be from Locust Grove Road,
there is one (inaudible) of property that comes out and accesses this whole piece.
However in addition to that we are providing access to the south to the Los Alamitos and
to the east to Sundance Subdivision. Those exact, since this is the preliminary stage, I am
pretty sure these will line up exactly but obviously further into the final design we will make
sure that they do line up exactly. The streets as is typical will be constructed to the
Highway District's standards, the interior streets with 50 foot of right of way, 37 foot wide
streets curb to curb and 5 foot sidewalks as is standard in the City of Meridian. Sewer for
the project will be extended from the existing trunk in Locust Grove Road in our access
street and is deep enough to get under the Nine Mile Drain by a gravity and we will provide
sewer service to the entire subdivision. Sewer service doesn't need to stub anything
further than our sutxlivision proposal. This proposal will sewer out that way, Sundance
will sewer out to the north. Water service to the subdivision will also be extended in from
Locust Grove Road and will Lie stubbed to connect into the existing or the future
subdivisions to the east and south of us. Also as was stated in Gary Smith's comments
his approval of the subdivision obviously will be contingent upon a satisfactory result from
their City Engineer's water model and he did state that in the comments and we
acknowledge that. Pressurized irrigation will be provided to the lots from the existing
Hunter Lateral to the east of us provides the irrigation now and that will be used for the
pressurized irrigation system and most likely that system will be maintained by the Nampa
Meridian. Right now I would like to address the City Engineer's and the City Planning and
Zoning Administrator's comments. I provided to both Gary and Shari a written response
to their comments. However, I would like to point out on Gary's his number 5 comment
regarding this particular lot right here. Originally this was 2 pieces of ground separated
roughly in the middle, this was access to the north, there was an old house that has not
been lived in for I don't know how long. And then this piece accessed this, this is wide
enough to provide our access, this is basically useless to the plat however we are platting
it along with the subdivision and it will remain in ownership. of the developer and he will
be responsible for the maintenance and the liability. It is useless to the subdivision it is
just one of those facts of life with a piece of property like this. We don't want it to be with
the homeowners association because they are not going to use it for anything and I would
guess that eventually (End of Tape) it will go to one of these 2 parties, 1 would hope. Also,
Gary's comment #9 regarding the flood plain boundary for Nine Mile, my research on the
most recent FEMA Map shows that the floodway and flood plain for Nine Mile Drain ends
at Locust Grove, there is no designated Floodway or Flood plain east of Locust Grove on
Nine Mile Drain so that is not an issue. Shari and her comments, her #4 comment
regarding a buffer as is discussed in the comprehensive plan between rural residential
existing and new urban density subdivisions. It takes about providing an adequate buffer,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 39
I would just like to state that 1 feel the area north of us and t will pull out this, I should have
had this mounted but I didn't have time. This is the existing subdivision to the north of us
which would, I will just set it right here, but you can get the picture. From here to here on
our plat is from here to here on that plat. There are 4 lots north of us that but up to our
north boundary. Those lots along that area of Rim View Subdivision are 1 acre lots
roughly, give or take a few square feet. Right now the existing houses on all of these lots
are basically clustered up along Charolais Drive. So basically you don't have a rural
residential estate lot with one full acre of landscaping and home. The homes are basically
clustered up in the front 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of the lot. And the remainder is just
an open pasture area. It is my opinion that the pasture area basically provides us with
some sort of a buffer between those residences and us. That would be my position on that
particular comment. The pasture along in here, I do have some photos for my sidewalk,
the pasture in here is 100 to 120 feet deep to the existing home. And that provides pretty
good buffering in my opinion. At this time I would like to answer any questions that the
Commission might have.
Johnson: I have one little question in here that might just be a typo on #15 on the
application C, are garages provided, someone has typed in no.
Merkle: I would agree with you Mr. Chairman that is a typo.
Johnson: Our ordinance requires 2 car garages. Any questions with Mr. Merkle?
Hepper: You stated that house size would be 1400 square feet which is similar to an
adjacent subdivision, which adjacent subdivision would that be that has a 1400 square
feet?
Merkle: Sundance Subdivision preliminary plat, which I know the preliminary plat was
approved, there was a variance issue with lot sizes and it will be coming back before the
City but it was originally approved with 1400 square foot minimums.
Hepper: By Planning and Zoning or by the City?
Merkle: I think with the annexation ordinance and the findings required 1400 square foot
minimums by Council, Mr. Crookston may correct me if 1 am wrong.
Hepper: I was at one of the meetings where they suggested it.
Crookston: I don't recall.
Hepper: I believe the preliminary plat was approved with 1500 square feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 40
Crookston: Los Alamitos?
Hepper: No, Sundance
Merkle: That may be true, I don't' want to state one way or the other for sure. But in
Shari's comments she has that we will provide on the plat a minimum of 1400 square foot
and we are in agreement with her comment.
Hepper: Yes, but I am not. I believe every subdivision south of the freeway is at 1500
square feet because when Sundance Subdivision was approved, and I consulted with Will
Berg and we pulled out every subdivision south of the freeway and everyone of them was
conditioned upon 1500 square feet or more.
Merkle: I think that is true from what I recollect now.
Hepper: Los Alamitos, Salmon Rapids, Sportsman Pointe, Hunts Bluff, all those are 1500
square feet or above. And Sundance 1 believe was conditioned upon the same conditions.
So if in deed that is fact I would suggest that this be the same, that if the City Council
elects to change that somewhere along the line than this may fall under that category.
Johnson: Any other questions or discussion? This is a public hearing, anyone else from
the public like to come fonnrard.
Fred Steinbroner, Sr., 1835 Charolais Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Steinbroner, Sr.: I live in one of the houses just north of this property. Which is the rim
View lot which is in Ada County. Raven Hill is going to be just to our south. If I may, you
may want to see what the thing looks like. The top pictures are the trees that border the
end of our property there against this new project. The middle pictures are a close up of
what is going on and the bottom pictures are of the animal life. The bottom ones were
taken by the boy at the end of the street. There are hawks, there are birds of prey in those
cottonwoods. The cottonwoods are not right in the back of my house, my house is the one
where you see the dog and my son out there with the shovel.
Johnson: I need to tell you that when you submit something to the Commission it becomes
property of the commission.
Steinbroner, Sr.: Good, the gentleman that just spoke, he said that he thought the buffer
was adequate. But I tell you if you look at the pictures you can see that we look out there
and you can virtually see forever. I mean you know 5 miles or whatever. Our closet
neighbor in that direction was Mr. Allan Chandler, we couldn't hardly see his house it was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 41
way, it is in the picture someplace. You can see for blocks and blocks. So when we talks
about 150 feet as being plenty of buffer I don't really believe that. But basically I am here
for 2 reasons, one of them is that I understand that you demand wood fences around these
building sites. I would like to say that I would like to see the wooden fence go up before
any construction is done for obvious reasons, do I have to state them 1 don't' think so. And
we would like to know where this fence is going to be really. As you can is it going to be
up next to the trees, will it be beyond the trees. It is my understanding that there is an
easement of 10 feet, the City Engineer says that in this easement is going to be
underground utilities. Are they going to take the end of the lot where the trees are and are
they going to hack the trees down and put these utilities where the trees are or is it going
to start as the engineer says starting from the drip line of the trees. In other words are
they going to leave these trees there. We are not talking about just trees, we are talking
about something that has squirrels in, they have the peacock as you can see lives in one
of those trees in the cottonwoods up there. Frankly I don't like the peacock he eats all the
cat food he drives us Crary but he comes for dinner and lunch. But still he is there and
we've got horses. The property that this is being built on had horses, it had pigs, never
complained a bit because there is enough property over there for everybody. Now all of
the sudden somebody is going to crowd in here and we would like to know and my
neighbors are concerned also and we would like to know what is going to happen. I read
the plan, it addresses taking down the present structures and such but it doesn't mention
anything about the trees. And I would like to see the trees, which by the way I have
checked the old post marks and it looks like our fence is, it is our fence, is 12 to 18 inches
inside of our property line. We have enough land we are not worried about 12 or 18
inches, but what we are worried about is whether all of the trees and I know that for sure
7 out of the 8 trees that are in the back of my lot I think are on my property and 1 of them
may be on the line. The cottonwoods most of the cottonwoods the big tall ones are
probably on this piece of property. There are 47 trees all totalled on that land. I would
like, #1 is not just saying that they are going to put a fence 1 would like to see it as part of
your rule that he has to put the fence up for our peaceful enjoyment, the dust and the
noise, etc, and this is probably going to take a year to build. We would like to see the
fence put up and we would like to know what is going to happen to the streets and we
would like to have the trees remain and if they say. By the way some contractors have a
rule of cutting things down and then letting people worry about them later. I think that this
thing should be addressed and if we can't get any satisfaction we are going to go to Fish
and Game and see what they are going to say. But I don't' think it is necessary if you will
make the rule that they should stay.
Alidjani: Are those trees on your property, his property or on a ditch for fish and game or
whoever is responsible for that?
Steinbroner, Sr.: They are pretty close to the line, some of them are on both.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 42
Alidjani: Some of the trees are on your property?
Steinbroner, Sr.: Yes, in fact the ones on my property which are the shorter trees, I don't
know what kind they are you can judge for yourself if you like. They are shorter than the
big tall cottonwoods. The ones that are on my property 7 out of the 8 are for sure on my
property. And one of them may be on his property and may be right on the line I am not
really sure. So when you are talking about easement are they going to take this
easement, that is my question, are they going to take this easement and are they going
to run right down under this ground. There is no way you can put a telephone pole down
through that thing. There is no way you can dig a ditch and put utilities down that thing.
So you are going to have to start, the easement is going to have to start on the drip line
of the trees which is approximately on some of the trees it is as much as 8 or 10 feet. It
isn't going to interfere with their buildings. If the buildings are 105 foot deep, I should say
the property is 105 foot deep, they can sure find something place on there to build and by
the way out in that country in the winter time especially there is no body around voices
carry. We are talking you can hear somebody talk 4 blocks away, we used to be out in the
country and we are not out in the country anymore.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Steinbroner? I appreciate your input, unless you
have any thing further we'll see if someone else wants to testify.
Fred Steinbroner, 1103 Michigan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Steinbroner: I would just like to make a short statement and say that I really have no
objection to the subdivision in the sense that it is just like all the other subdivisions that are
being built around there. It is not at all conforming to what is already there and none of
these subdivisions are conforming to what is already there, buf they are layering. They
are saying it is just like the one that is going to be built, whatever I can go on and on
complaining about that. Basically is as nice or nicer than the other ones that are around
there so in that sense I can't say much about that . I would like to comment on the
buffering situation. The trees are the natural buffer between my parents property and the
property next door. I just want to make that really clear to everyone here including the
developer. That a fence should be built on their side of the trees in all fairness to the
existing acre lots, acre homes that are already in existence. It is sort of like the situation
where all the people are complaining earlier about the earlier situation, we have our little
lane there. We really I think deserve some consideration for our existing little lane. We
have 10 acre lots with nice houses, big houses, it is a very nice area. It is already in
existence, all of these subdivisions with their postage stamp size lots are crowding in there
and swallow us up and completely surround us. Okay so be it that is the real vuorld, we
acknowledge that. But we would like to have some buffering, some protection from all of
these subdivisions that are going to completely surround us and swallow us up and are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 43
not going to be conforming all to what is already there. All I would like to see done, 1 think
the main thing to make sure there is really firmly done is to protect that subdivision at least
if nothing else using the natural trees that are already there. They are beautiful trees, they
have birds of prey in them, they have hawks in them, they are fantastic trees. They are
really beautiful, they would be, you can see them all the way from the interstate as you
drive by. They are a scenic advantage to the City of Meridian for travellers and everyone
else. They are huge trees over 50 feet tall, way up in the air. They are beautiful and
would just like to see them remain, there are 47 of them. I don't' think they will intertere
with the developer's plans, I don't think they will cost him any money really or anything like
that. In fact rf anything in the long run it will exchange the value of the whole area. All they
have to do is leave the trees there and build the fence on their side of the trees and make
the trees a natural buffer. It would sort of make a corridor there, I don't' know, they might
even have to change their plat map to show that, maybe, I don't know what the should do
but they have to leave the trees there. The trouble is you can't build a fence and still leave
the trees there because the fence would have to go right through the trees and it is like a
small tiny forest in there. It is a real buffer, a natural buffer. So it is kind of a problem in
a sense for them and for everyone. I don't really know exactly what the solution is but you
can't build a fence through the trees and so they are going to waste some property 1 don't'
know how they are going to do it but the point is the trees should remain. Whatever it
takes to keep the trees there I really feel strongly the trees should remain. It would be a
sin to take those trees out of there, absolutely it would be immoral. That is all I have to
say.
Hepper: Do the trees go all along several lots there or just your lots.
Steinbroner: Yes, they go along pretty much the whole length. They are mostly right
about in this are right here (inaudible). There is a real natural barrier, (inaudible} it is a
sound barrier, dust barrier, wind barrier. (Inaudible) really beautiful.
Hepper: Shari Stiles the Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that the plat should be
redesigned to show transitional buffering between your property and their property.
Steinbroner: 1 would like to see that done.
Hepper: Do you think something can be worked out where if they would leave the trees
you would accept that as the transitional buffering.
Steinbroner: That is what I am saying, the trees are the natural buffering. We can talk
about the back of the lot, a whole lot of buffering, the trees are a natural beautiful buffer.
Hepper: You would rather see the trees than a berm? Maybe a berm with some shrubs
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 44
on it or something like that. You would rather see the trees than that.
Steinbroner: Yes, by far, I think it would be nice if they built a berm and left the trees and
built something really nice in that area. Let me go on for just a minute, all of these
developers are coming in there they are throwing these housing tracts in there just like
cord wood, you know it we see it. There are no parks being allowed for it, there is nothing
being allowed for it. Where are the cars going to go to come out of all of these tracts. You
have narrow 2 lane streets on Locust Grove and South Overland. There is no way, these
developers let's face it they are walking away with millions of bucks on this and the City
or someone is going to have to pay to develop all of these roads and make 4 lane
highways out of boulevards. There is no way all of those people are going to be able to
get out on Locust Grove and out on Overland, not a chance. If you really look at the
situation, if you go over there and look at it, it is already crowded. They are going to build
hundreds and hundreds of these housing tracts, how are they going to get on the
interstate. It is going to be gridlock every morning, it is already heavy traffic. It is not
going to work out, you are going to have to within the next, immediately 1 am talking about
when these tracts are done you are going to have to have 4 lane streets there. That isn't
going to work out, I mean there are all kinds of considerations here. I think they ought to
do more, I think they ought to put a berm there I think the ought to do all kinds of things.
I could go on and on, but the point is it is America it is free enterprise it is capitalism they
are not doing anything any worse than anybody else who is raping the place. I am just
saying please leave the trees if nothing else leave the trees.
Johnson: I think we got the point.
Steinbroner, Sr.: May I say one thing, it was sort of mis-stated in a way, the trees do not
cover all of the houses going across. The house on the very end has no trees at all.
would say that Shari's idea whatever it was means that they would have to put something
in this side and something in on this side.
Shearer: It looks to me like there is already a fence down through there, why couldn't they
put a fence down through there. If there is one now why couldn't one be put in there with
the trees for the most part where they are at.
(Inaudible)
Steinbroner, Sr.: There was one question and that was could we put the fence next to the
existing fence. My idea is that the existing fence is 12 to 18 inches inside of our property
and if they try to move it out it will be right in the middle of the trees. Which would be a
problem, but it needs something, some kind of a plan whatever the plan is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 45
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public, there is no one else here. Would the
developer like like to say something?
Merkle: I don't think it is Mr. Chandler's intent to cut down any trees. The trees there
provide a nice backyard to lots that go along there. I am in agreement to Mr. Steinbroner
on that. However, the one point he did make on the fence being on the south side of the
trees I would oppose that. We would like to put the fence down the property line and Mr.
Chandler could meet with them to discuss where the fence will go and try to minimize, I
cant say we vaon't cut any trees down but we are surly going to try and save as many trees
as possible.. I mean the cottonwood trees, I am not a botanist or whatever it takes to
understand cottonwood trees but the life span on those is 10 to 15 to 20 years on those
ff that. They send roots and suckers up and basically they are being fed by the irrigation
ditch that runs down there. They are nice trees and they are a nice buffer and we are
going to try to save as many as possible. I can't say tonight that not one of them will be
cut down.
Shearer: Have you surveyed the line yet?
Merkle: Yes, the line has been surveyed, I don't' have that information with me tonight, but
the boundary has been established by our survey department and he may be true about
his fence being 18 inches. But we would like to meet with them out there to show them
where the property line is and where the fence is being proposed. We don't want to put
it on the south side we want to put it on the property line.
Johnson: I think the key there is that you volunteered to meet with them and I think that
is a good idea.
Steinbroner: Well, I still don't think we are making our point here, we are talking about
cutting down trees and I just want to stress that we don't' want any of the trees cut down
that are within about 10 feet of the property line.
Johnson: We understand that.
Steinbroner. I don't think they understand how aggressive we are going to be, how upset
we are going to be if any of the trees.
Johnson: It seems to me that the solution would be that you just deed him that 18 inches
of property where the existing fence is and build a fence right down where that one is.
That is only a suggestion.
Steinbroner: I don't' know maybe that can be worked out but the point is we don't want
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 46
any of the trees (inaudible).
Alidjani: We appreciate your point sir, but still it is his ground. Just don't forget that little
point. The man bought the ground and he had a tree on that and if it is his ground and his
tree he should be able to do what he wants. On the other hand I appreciate your point that
what you are saying is the trees are valuable and beautiful and all of that is granted.
Johnson: I see a spirit of cooperation here and 1 think it can be worked out.
Steinbroner: I just wanted to stress that. I would like to recommend that be part of the
condition of the approval of this property that none of the trees within 10 feet of the
property be (inaudible).
Alidjani: I guess you don't' hear us.
Steinbroner: I do hear you, you are saying that this man has the right to do anything he
wants with his property I agree.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Steinbroner: (Inaudible) that does not conforming really to the property that is next to it.
You are annexing this property.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Alidjani: (Inaudible) get together with him and somehow come up with a solution that both
parties are happy with. We don't have a chain saw to cut your trees.
Steinbroner: He is interested in money so unless you make it a condition (inaudible)
Shearer: Those trees are money to him too. It makes it a lot more valuable to have those
trees so he is going to consider it.
Steinbroner: He is going to consider it, he is a developer and he is interested in money.
Shearer: Well if you have one on the property line I don't know what you can do but cut
it down.
Johnson: Well, developer, profit and money are really not bad words.
Steinbroner: No they aren't but I am just saying that he can do it (inaudible) everybody
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 13, 1994
Page 47
happy.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: We need to get control here, we need to shut off the public hearing, there is no
one else here. I will close the public hearing at this point then. Any discussion or
comments. We need to move here. This is a request for annexation and zoning which
would require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and contusions of law for
this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation for Raven Hill Subdivision, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there any other motions?
Rountree: I move that we adjourn.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: We have a motion to adjourn and a second, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Septemtrer 13, 1994
Page 48
ATTEST:
f~j
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK
1. _ _ _ _,
JIM JO N, CHAIRMAN
SAP' 3 1,1~s
CITY p~ ~f ~~ ~~ °
wig ~~ T~~a~~~ k~ , ~~ ~~~~
^s3 EAST E''~~~0
R Ql~N d~Al~O E~~s~~~?
~ ciT~~ u~ r~L~.ti~irs~~
~~ ~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
CITY 4~F EIfEP<90l4~''~
HUB t3F TE3w~S~~G:~,~ m°,~~~.~_FY,
~NlIwl3ifi;S~T3: ~~.&+H~ IraG~'~~
5EP 1 3 15~1~s
CtTh' (~F P,,L~ila-Htm
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P"~P'- /Sj Z__
i~~ s,~r,- SfS~^-~~3C~
~~7-?~s
S~.u~-r~r ~~5~- D~O~
•
• ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION AND BROWN
ANNE]CATION AND ZONING
GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 6,
T. 3N., R. lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on September 13, 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 was tabled to October 11, 1994,
for a subdivision plat to be submitted, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and
the Applicant appearing through Ted Hutchinson, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for September 13, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the September 13, 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.
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pave - 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 22.66 acres
in size; it is located between Locust Grove Road and Meridian oad
Euy/e-
and between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road; it is northeast of
Chateau Meadows # 8.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT
(Rural Transition) and the proposed use is requested to be for R-4
Residential type development.
4. The general area surrounding the property is either
developed or is proposed to be developed. The land is presently
used for agricultural purposes and there is one house on the
property.
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 owners of record are Billie
W. and L. Joy Brown, who have granted permission for 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-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2
for one house and for agricultural uses; that the applicant
indicated that the intended development of the property is for an
R-4 type subdivision use; that the Applicant did not submit a
request for approval of a subdivision plat at the time of
submitting the application for annexation but has now submitted an
application for subdivision approval; that Ted Hutchinson stated
that Chateau Meadows was adjacent as was Chamberlain Estates; that
he had questions on access to Ustick Road; that he had no problems
with the comments of the City staff; that he had met with ACHD;
that the density was unknown; that there would be a mix of houses;
that there was no problem with pathways and some park space; and
that lots around existing houses would be 1/2 to one full acre. At
the end of the hearing he stated that Wingate Lane was narrow and
tree lined and access through Wingate would not be wise; that the
parcel abuts Chamberlain Estates and roads will probably align with
the roads in Chamberlain Estates; that it is not their intention to
access Wingate Lane; that flood irrigation would be replaces with
pressurized irrigation; that there was no plat because they were
trying to work out plans, particularly for access.
10. There were several property owners in the immediate area
who testified about the Application; the testimony can be
summarized as follows:
000r-
a. Butch ewe testified that he resides in Chateau Meadows
but wants development limited to single level houses;
that there was a waste water problem in the area; the
northeast corner of Chateau Meadows is used as waste
area; that there is a water problem; drains should not be
tied to irrigation; that the south line should be waste
ditch. Mr. ew also testified at the end of the
S;;c.ar
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3
hearing that he did not have a ground water problem
b. Bob Howe testified that he lives in same area as Butch
Sewer; that he desired french drains w/single level
houses; wants same view that he has always had; that
foxes in the area should be caught and moved.
c. Vern Alleman made some comments towards the plat of the
proposed subdivision which had not been submitted at the
time of the hearing and stated that when the plat was
heard he would testify again.
d. Albert Dauben stated that he lives across from access
road to the existing house; that he desired a berm hill
and fence to protect his property from the development;
that there would be a problem with houses backing on
Wingate Lane; that he was not against subdivision but
Wingate Lane must be protected.
e. Betty Jo Paremoe wants the Wingate private lane
maintained; that there is a road association; that she
likes the rural and quiet area as it is and desires no
change; she wants a safeguard for privacy.
Dale Sharp stated that ~(he was opposed to the subdivision
because of growth, traffic and problems for the schools;
she wants Wingate Lane kept private; that she wants the
subdivision bermed off and separate; that she wants
Wingate Lane fenced off; that the lane cannot take more
traffic. Mrs. Sharp testified at the end of hearing that
she questioned pressurized irrigation and that we do not
need more houses.
g. Floyd Reichert stated that he wants annexation to happen;
that Wingate Lane is illegal; that the easement should be
kept open; that he desired two stor~(y houses; that there
were no restrictions on Wingate Lane.
h. Helen Sharp questioned a zone change with the generality
of the proposal that had been submitted; that she desired
a plan to be presented; building has created problems but
nothing is being done about it; she wanted to know what
was being done about parks; she stated that Wingate Lane
is a private lane and people do take care of it; that
there was not enough information to make a decision; she
questioned whether this zone change complies with the
Comprehensive Plan; that no more students could go to
Chief Joseph elementary school; that she was opposed to
growth with no planning.
i. Susan Smith testified that she wants private lane
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4
quality; that she does not oppose the subdivision; that
she want there to be no usage of Wingate Lane; that there
is an informal road association for Wingate Lane; that
should be no additional usage for Wingate Lane.
j. Mick Dauben testified that there is too much growth in
the area and that he desires a plan for the subdivision.
k. Shirley Shy stated that she apposed the subdivision and
that there was too much traffic on Wingate Lane.
1. Mark Peterson that he lives across the street from the
majority of subdivision with 5 acres he thought; that he
desires a berm; that the lot size should be limited in
size to 5 acres; that he wants a country setting.
m. Don Bryan testified that people are fighting access to
their lane; his concern is the traffic flow; that traffic
should be sent to Fairview and not Locust Grove Road;
that development is not causing traffic to go to
Fairview; drainage of roads should not qo to irrigation
drains; drainage should not be to the South Slough.
n. Rick Schultsmeir testified that he lives in Boise; that
his mother lives on Wingate Lane; that the quality on
Wingate needs to be preserved.
o. Barb Borup testified that wished that the quality of
growth could remain the same; that the City makes the
final decision on Wingate Lane; that she has a lot of
questions about Wingate Lane.
p. Sheryl Howe stated water is his concern; that there is
water under their house; that the ditch behind them needs
to be tiled.
q. Larry Sale, Ada County Highway District representative,
testified that Wingate Lane is a private owned by some or
all of the people; that it could become public at the
owners' request if ACRD to accepts; that the Lane could
be condemned; he does not anticipate that condemnation
would occur; that some road water can be discharged into
drainages but not live irrigation ditches; that he
suspects ACHD will ask for a stub street to Ustick Road;
that the traffic in the center of the section will be
drained to arterials; that he thought there would be no
public street connection to Wingate Lane.
11. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized
Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5
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 if the Applicant extends the lines.
15. Meridian City Engineer and Meridian City Planner did
submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full. That the Meridian Planning Director stated that the
application was consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
that a bike/pedestrian pathway is indicated along the northern
boundary; that a non-combustible fence is required along the South
Slough prior to construction; that perimeter fencing is required
prior to construction; that a development agreement is required as
a condition of annexation.
16. That the City Engineer commented that the legal
description included as Schedule C to the application should be
used for the annexation ordinance, if approved; that the property
is contiguous to the City limits; that water and sewer were
PNE/ED?[ONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6
available; and that public access would be provided when
Chamberlain Estates No. 1 develops its eastern boundary; and that
Wingate Lane, a private Lane, provides access for the present owner
along with other property owners adjacent to the Lane.
17. That the Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire and
Police Departments, Meridian School District, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and other
agencies did not submit comments, but when they are received they
shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the
City of Meridian.
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone.
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, town houses, 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,
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7
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, town houses arrangements), ."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
23. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
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
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT ~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAN Page - 8
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
25. 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.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 2daho 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
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 9
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 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-
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
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.
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.
PNL/LDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paste - 11
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, PNE/Edmonds Construction, 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, if annexed, must
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12
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 would be required to connect to Meridian water
and sewer; that the development of the property would be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that,
as a condition of annexation the Applicant would 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 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 has not
been shown.
11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13
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; however, there are very
large lots across Wingate Lane that shall be buffered by the
Applicant and the subdivision covenants shall let the home owners
in the proposed subdivision know that those lots are there and that
the buffering must remain; that this matter shall be addressed in
the development agreement.
12. That the development of R-4 as suggested by the Applicant
is not compatible to the homes across Wingate Lane; that R-4
development would be compatible with the lots and homes in Chateau
Meadows and Chamberlain Estates; that some type of transition
development between the Wingate lots and the Chateau Meadows and
Chamberlain Estates lots needs to be put forth for the development
of the property.
13. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, the 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, but the actual
zoning of the property should be left up to the City Council as the
Commission does not feel comfortable in having the entire parcel
zoned R-4; that in the period before the City Council hearing the
Applicant should make it known that it desires to have the portion
of the land abutting Wingate Lane zoned at a much less dense zone
than R-4, such as R-2, to provide a transition between the acre, or
more, lots along Wingate Lane and the R-8 lots of Chateau Meadows
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pave - 14
and Chamberlain Estates; the zoning should not drop off directly
from R-2 to the R-8 of Chamberlain Estates and Chateau Meadows but
gradually go down to the R-4 to tie in then with the R-8; that the
conditions would be those stated above if the property is
eventually annexed and zoned; that the annexation would be more of
an orderly development and reasonable if some type of transition
development is put forth between the western part of the land and
the eastern part adjacent to Wingate Lane; that the property shall
be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met.
14. That if the Applicant does not request that transition
zoning be applied to the land and submit a plat application showing
this, it is concluded that the property should not be annexed; that
it is of great concern to the Commission that the lots along
Wingate Lane are protected; that the matter should be tabled until
a new subdivision application is submitted; that as a condition of
annexation, when annexed, it is concluded that a fence should be
placed along Wingate Lane to prevent home owners on this land from
gaining access to Wingate Lane, particularly because it is a
private lane.
15. That the South Slough runs along the north boundary of
the property, and as a condition of annexation the South Slough
must be landscaped to fit into other improvements that have been
made along the slough with a pedestrian and bike path.
16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be
tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 15
annexation, when annexed, and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and eventual new plat to meet the transition between
acre or more lots and R-4, would be in the best interest of the
City of Meridian, but the Application should be tabled to allow the
Applicant time to submit another plat.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property should not annexed.
19. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property should not annexed.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
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 6-
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 16
•
RECOl~tENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
that the Application for annexation and zoning be tabled; if the
Applicant shall not meet these conditions, the Application shall be
denied.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
PNE/EDMONDS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 17
~ ~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WEST ONE BANK
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
220 WEST CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing through the project's architect, Scott A.
Wendell, 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 September 13, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the September 13, 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/WEST ONE Page 1
3. That the property is zoned L-O, Limited Office, which
requires a conditional uae permit for drive through banking which
the application requests; that it will be a pneumatic system
without windows.
4. That the Limited Office District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7. as follows:
(L-O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-O)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative,
accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and
similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy
testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing
of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions
of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this
district. The L-O District is designed to act as a
buffer between other more intense non-residential uses
and high density residential uses, and is thus a
transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and
Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in
this district.
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 property to the west is used for residences,
the property to the east is vacant or pasture ground, the property
to the north is owned by The Seventh Day Adventist Church,
property south Cherry Lane Road.
7. That the abutting properties are used for commercial and
residential purposes.
B. 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/WEST ONE Page 2
9. That sewer and water is available to the property, but
the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and
water rates.
10. That the City Engineer, and City Planning Director, mad
no comments.
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
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
Zdaho;
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/WEST ONE Page 3
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.
g. 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.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/WEST ONE Page 4
5. 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
ROUNTREE
SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED ~Lti~-~"
VOTED
ION
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
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/WEST ONE Page 5
~ * OR!GIIUA~
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
JUDITH SCHANCE
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT
1050 W. KINGSWOOD COURT
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and
the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Accessory Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for September 13, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the September 13, 1994,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and the Applicant does not own the property; that owner
of property is Jack Milne of Bellevue, Washington, described in
the application which description is incorporated herein; that the
surrounding properties are residential homes.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
3. That the Applicant requests an accessory use permit for
the operation of a Family Day Care Home; that such use requires an
accessory use permit in any zone where allowed.
4. That the property is contained in the MISTY MEADOWS NO.
1 SUBDIVISION.
5. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth
above and the Applicant proposes to care for 3-4 children; that
the number includes caring for infants up to 4 total; that the
definition of Family Child Care Home restricts the number of
children in that type of facility to 5 or less.
6. That the day care use proposed by Applicant is an
allowed accessory use in the R-4 and R-8 districts of which the
Applicant's property is zoned.
7. That the subject property is occupied by the Applicant;
that the yard will be completely fenced with a 6 foot wooden
fence; that the property does not have irrigation canals or
facilities in the area.
8. That sewer and water is already connected to the
property, but the use may require additional charges or fees.
9. That the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to
~(j."L~z%~0 p.m., five days a week not to include weekends.
10. That Applicant will be getting a day care license.
11. There was oral testimony in opposition to the
application; that Richard Brown of Misty Meadows Subdivision
stated he is opposed for the reason of increased traffic and
submitted a letter stating such; that Doug Moss testified stating
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2
covenants say no businesses; that he does not like kids and that
is his reason for opposing the application.
12. That the Zoning Administrator commented that adjacent
property owners have indicated covenants prohibit home
occupations; as the City does not enforce covenants, if permission
is granted by the City, homeowners will have to follow-up on
enforcement; and the City Engineer commented that an additional
sewer and water assessment may be necessary and that since the
property is on a cul-de-sac other traffic should not create a
problem for people dropping off or picking their children up.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
which abut the external lot or boundary lines of the property
under consideration.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
Accessory Uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; and
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and State.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on an accessory use permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
5. That 11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for
Accessory Use Permits; that those standards are as follows:
Family Child Care Home Standards: It is the intent of this
provision to provide for accessory family child care homes
which will not adversely impact surrounding properties due to
children's noise, traffic and other activities, and which are
located away from and properly screened from adverse impacts
to the health, safety and welfare of the children. The
following conditions shall apply:
(1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho
State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Care
Licensing Division if required.
(2) Acquire an occupancy certificate.
(3) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee
which may be the driveway to the home.
(4) Provide for child pick-up located off arterial or
collector streets.
(5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect
children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer
between properties.
(6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction,
to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic
on arterial or collector streets.
6. The Applicant shall keep the children in the home or
fenced yard at all times except for drop-off and pick-up times
when the parents shall be required to bring the children into the
Applicant's home and come into the home to pick the children up.
The children shall at no time be allowed out side of the fenced
area when not accompanied by an adult.
7. That the Applicant meets the conditions stated in
paragraph 5, except numbers 1 and 2 and she will have to show
evidence of the fence requirements; in regards to 1 she will have
to obtain her license and in regards to 2 she will have to obtain
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
the occupancy permit from the City Building Inspector.
S. That the City has judged this Application for an
accessory use permit upon the basis of guidelines contained above
and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take
judicial notice.
9. That the State of Idaho Health and Welfare Child Care
Licensing for a Family Child Care Home allows up to Six (6)
children to be cared for but the ordinances of the City of
Meridian only allow up to five (5) children under the Family Child
Care Home. The Applicant shall be limited to a maximum of five
(5) children to be cared for under this accessory use permit.
10. That applications of this nature are difficult because
the ordinances say the use is an allowed accessory use if the
standards are met but the neighbors strongly object. If the
neighbors objections are allowed to control it is government by
man not by law. The law controls and the use shall be allowed if
the conditions are met. The neighbors have the right to pursue
any remedy that they feel is available to them.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTE
VOTE
VOTE
VOTED '~ ~ ~--~-~
VOTED ^'---~~°-'
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves
the Accessory Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the
property described in the application with the conditions set
forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which
specifically include the requirements and conditions cited in
Conclusions of Law number five (5), six (6) and nine (9) set forth
above, and that the property be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the
Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of
Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to annual review
upon notice to the Applicant by the City.
MOTION:
APPROVEDy~~~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6
i
~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THS PLANNING AND ZONING CONMISSION
OF THS CITY OF MERIDIAN
PASTOR GORDON SLYTER
REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
NW CORNER OF MBRIDIAN ROAD AND SPICEWOOD DRIVE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Commissioner
Rountree stepped down due to potential conflict of interest, the
Applicant, Gordon Slyter, Pastor of Treasure Valley Worship Center,
appearing, the City Council 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 Rezone and the
Conditional Use Permit Application was published for two (2)
consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for
September 13, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the September 13, 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;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
2. That this property, which includes two (2) parcels, is
located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the
owner of record of the property, but the owners of record are E and
B Joint Trust (Ed Bews and Burt Smith) which property is described
in the application which description is incorporated herein; that
the property is now zoned R-4; that Applicant is requesting a
rezone of two (2) parcels of land currently zoned R-4 Residential
to L-O Limited Office; that the larger parcel of 1 and 1/2 acres
will be the proposed church building and parking; that the second
parcel of approximately 1 acre in size, will remain undeveloped
until phase two of the building project is begun.
3. That the Applicant offers the second parcel, to the south
of Spicewood Drive, to be used by the City as a ball field, etc.,
until such time as the Church may require it; the Applicant also
states they may have to enlarge the church facility in the future
and that parcel to the south of Spicewood Drive would be used for
parking.
4. That the proposed land use would be to build a church,
together with parking and playground on the parcel to the north of
Spicewood Drive.
5. That the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use
application with the intentions of operating a day care pre-school
in the church facilities; that the business plans show operating
with 36 children; that the license will be for the maximum of 48
children.
6. That the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 2
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. That a day care center is permitted use in the
L-O District under a conditional use permit; the Limited Office
Zone requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a day
care center caring for thirteen (13) or more children, which is the
use the application requests; that such use requires a conditional
use permit in any zone where allowed.
8. That the L-O District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows:
(L-O) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L-O)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting,
clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses.
Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of
any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create
noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the
overall purpose of this district. The L-O District is
designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-
residential uses and high density residential uses, and is
thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water
and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in
this district.
9. That the property is presently farm and pasture land and
currently vacant.
10. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth
above, which is to build a church, together with parking and
playground and to provide a licensed pre-school day care center for
a maximum of 48 children between the ages of 2 1/2 years to older.
11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, and City Planning and
Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, City Fire Department, Ada
County Highway District, Central District Health Department, and
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments regarding
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
the rezone and conditional use request which are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full; that the comments by the City
Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, are that this
project will be a good transitional use from the existing
residential; that sewer and water are available but the use may
require additional charges or fees.
12. That there was testimony from Tyler Rountree, who is a
resident of the area living north of the subject property,
objecting to the rezone request; that he bought his lot on the
pretense that it was R-4 Residential and would never be commercial
property.
13. That the property is located on Meridian Road and it is
designated as an Entryway Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan; the
Entryway Corridors Goal Statement in the Comprehensive Plan
includes the following statement:
4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as
a condition of development approval, landscaping along all
entrance corridors.
14. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
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
FINDIN(35 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pa4e 4
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants'
property.
2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and State.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment or conditional use.
4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-
416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67
Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it
can take judicial notice.
5. That Section 11-2-416 A. states in part as follows:
"When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or
zoning and development practice require, the Council may
amend, supplement, change „ or repeal the regulations,
restrictions, and boundaries or classification or property as
well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance."
6. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City
shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review
of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and
conditions of the area, the City Council specifically concludes as
follows:
(a) The L-O zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is in an
a good location, surrounded by residential with retail
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
across Meridian road.
(b) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is
intended to be developed in the fashion that would be
allowed under the proposed new zoning.
(c) That the property, if designed and used as allowed in the
L-O District, would apparently be designed and
constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area,
which is developed in the R-4 fashion.
(d) The L-O use would not be hazardous to the existing or
future uses of the neighborhood.
(e) L-O development would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and would not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
(f) The proposed use would not involve uses, activities,
processes materials, equipment or conditions of
operation that would be detrimental to any person,
property or the general welfare of the area.
(g) Development in the L-O district, and particularly as
planned by the Applicant, would produce only a minimum
traffic increase during the week with the heaviest seen
on Sundays.
(h) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss
or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
(i) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of
City of Meridian.
7. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-
416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67
Chapter 65, Zdaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it
can take judicial notice.
8. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAH Page 6
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CSNTER
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
City 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 Commission concludes
as follows as to the conditional use to operate a day care within
the church:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
a conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The use would 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 would be designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that
traffic will increase because of the proposed day care
center, but due to the drop-off and pick-up being off of
Meridian Road and off of Spicewood Drive it should not be
a problem.
e. The property has sewer and water service already
connected.
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.
g. 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.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
use will be required and the parking layout in the
Application will meet the requirements of the City
ordinance due to the change in the parking and pick-up
and drop-off area.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pa4e 7
TREASURE VALLEY WORS$IP CENTER
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
9. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendation
and requirements of the City Engineer will have to be met and
complied with.
10. That the comments and requirements of the Planning and
Zoning Administrator shall be met and complied with; particularly
with owners submitting revised consent form indicating
indemnification of City of Meridian, submitting day care license
from State of Idaho prior to opening and a development agreement.
11. That it is concluded that as a safety measure in the
operation of the day care facility that all children shall be
dropped or picked up in the parking area of the church and that no
children shall be dropped or picked up on Meridian Road or
Spicewood Drive.
12. That it is concluded that the L-O, Limited Office,
District has been requested so the Applicant could construct a
church and operate a day care out of the church and eventually
using the parcel south of Spicewood for parking; that some means
needs to be taken to make sure that no other use allowed in the L-O
District is placed on the property; that a deed restriction on the
property would be the best way to restrict the use of the property
to church purposes.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
Council of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
RECONMENDATION
VOTED=~~
VOTED
VOTED
VOTE
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Rezone and the Conditional Use Permit
requested by the Applicant for the property described in the
application be approved with the conditions set forth in these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be
required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and
Life Safety Codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, including that all parking
areas shall be paved and the fence Ordinance shall be met. The
conditional use permit shall be subject to annual, or periodic,
review upon motion by the City, and all children shall be dropped
off and picked up in the parking area of the property and any play
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
TREASURE VALLEY WORSRIP CENTER
area for the children must be fenced at a height to prevent any
children entering the roads or leaving the child care facility.
MOTION:
APPROVED• DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER
OR{GINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNIN(; AND ZONIN(; COMMISSION
BRIGHTON CORPORATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EAST SIDE OF BLACK CAT ROAD
BETWEEN USTICH AND CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
September 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing through the project's engineer, Mike Wardle,
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 September 13, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the September 13, 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;
it is located on the east side of Black Cat Road between Ustick and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
ASHFORD GREENS
Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that was
annexed by the City over fourteen years ago and part of a parcel
that has recently been requested to be annexed.
3. In a letter dated August 10, 1994, which was revised
September 1, 1994, the Applicant's representative, Mike Wardle,
stated the conditional use application for a planned unit
development, that the land is intended to be developed into 228
single family lots plus a medium residential area with 216
residential units, that they desired approval of the overall
project, desired approval of 228 single family lots and 216 medium
density units, approval of a density transfer from the single
family lot and golf course to the medium density parcels, and
desired approval of lot frontages, dimensional standards, private
drives, "flag" lots, cul-de-sac and block lengths; Mr. Wardle
further stated that they were aware that the PDR approval for the
medium density parcels must be conditioned on a future submittal of
specific design plans which would address access, roadways,
parking, utilities, open space, landscaping, and other matters; in
an additional letter to Shari Stiles dated September 2, 1994, Mr.
Wardle stated that the single family dwelling units would be on
78.29 acres with a density of 2.91 dwellings units per acre, and
indicates that the medium density dwelling units would be on 27
acres with a density of 8 units per acre; that the total acreage
used for residential development would be 123.55 acres with 444
dwelling units, for a total density of 3.59 dwelling units per
acre.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
ASHFORD GREENS
4. There are single family subdivisions adjacent and nearby;
that Golf View Estates and Cherry Lane Village Subdivision Nos. 3
and 4 has larger lots than those shown on the Applicant's concept
plan; that most of the lots do have 8,000 square feet but most also
only have 75 feet of street frontage; there are some lots with 80
feet of street frontage.
5. Much of the property is already zoned R-4 Residential and
the Applicant has submitted an application for annexation and
zoning that requests the balance of the property to be annexed and
zoned R-4; that the proposed use is for a Planned Development
Residential (PD-R) development encompassing single family lots,
medium density parcels, and an addition to the City owned Cherry
Lane Golf Course, with the City doing moat of the development of
the golf course.
6. Under 11-2-409 ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A, a
Planned Development Residential (PD-R) requires a conditional use
permit.
7. A concept plan was submitted to the City, apparently to
assist the City in reviewing the Application; a preliminary plat
was submitted with the Applicant's Application for annexation and
zoning and request for preliminary plat approval; the concept plan
and the preliminary plat with the annexation and zoning application
showed the proposed layout of the single family dwelling areas but
did not show any layout for the medium density areas; no
development plans were submitted for development of the medium
density parcels shown on the concept plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
ASHFORD GREENS
8. That the Applicant's representative stated at the public
hearing that there were two minor changes which were that the
maintenance shed area would be changed and a stub street to the
north added; that the Application was to have approval of a planned
unit development that encompassed single family and medium density
dwellings and the golf course; that the Planning and Zoning
commission can require the medium density to come back before it;
that roadways, access and other plans could be required; that six
lots require private drives; that there are two flag lots and
longer cul-de-sacs that need to be approved as part of the PUD.
9. That the Meridian Fire Chief state that he did not have
a problem with this permit, as long as all codes are met; that the
Meridian School District commented that it had a problem with the
amount of students that would be generated by this development and
the cost to the District for educating them and asked for help in
dealing with the impact; the Central District Health Department
stated that the development was alright if it was provided with
central water and sewer, did not cause a mosquito breeding problem,
and there was no storm water problem; that Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District commented; that the Meridian City Engineer
hart
commented that he od no comments; that all of the above comments
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
man
10. That a of the blocks in Cherry Lane Village No. 1 and
No. 2 were alternated with an 80 foot lot and then a 75 foot lot;
that those subdivisions were developed before the current Zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
ASHFORD GREENS
Ordinance was adopted, which now does not allow such in the R-4
District.
11. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 zone; that the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance speak to planned unit
developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section."
12. That the R-4 District requirements, such as but not
limited to, are 8,000 square foot lots, 1,400 square foot houses,
and 80 feet of street frontage, and such are incorporated herein as
if set forth in full; that there was not statement from the
Applicant how the R-4 requirements would be met nor did the
Applicant state what the request was as to how the requirements
would be excepted; the concept plan does show the proposed
exceptions to the street frontage and lot sizes but no mention was
made as to square footage, whether there would be duplexes, town
houses, or condominiums, or anything that would specifically
pertain to what the Applicant characterized as "medium density".
13. That sewer and water is available to the property and is
required.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
ASRFORD GREENS
14. That Larry Sale, from Ada County Highway District
commented concerning linkage between Interlachen Way and Dawson
Lane; he did not desire Interlachen Way to connect to this
development, stating that Interlachen was only a connector road
from Cherry Lane to where it ends now and should not be continued
as a collector.
15. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
16. 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 the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
ASHFORD GREENS
4. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
5. 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 and
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance require a
conditional use permit to allow the use.
c. The Applicant did not state that the development
would be designed and constructed to be harmonious in
appearance with the intended character of the general
vicinity, which is the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision
and Golf View Estates; it does appear that that was the
intention in the single family lot areas but it would be
better to have the lot frontages of 75 to 80 feet
alternated so that there are not long strings of 75 foot
lots; and it is also hard for the Commission to tell if
the Applicant intended to have the development be
harmonious with the preexisting golf course development
without a specific plan for what has been identified as
the medium density areas.
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
and will have to be installed and connected by the
Applicant.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
ASHFORD GREENS
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. 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.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use will be required and it appears that parking
for the golf course will have to be enlarged.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
6. That it concluded that Commission appreciates the ideas
presented and the concept is generally good, but it does need some
changes in regard to not having such long strings of 75 foot lots;
that it would be better and more harmonious with the rest of the
golf course property to have the 80 and 75 foot lots alternated
with more 80 foot lots and fewer 75 foot lots; that Interlachen
should connect to Dawson Drive so that there would be connection
from Cherry Lane to the future club house and if it is connected it
should be designed so that speed can be kept to a minimum, both
with speed inhibitors, such as mounds and design of the road; that
there should also be some kind of pedestrian access to the club
house and paths for golf carts so that they can get to the club
house without having to travel on the golf course.
7. That it is further concluded by the Commission that there
is insufficient information, designs and plans before it to make an
approval of what has been submitted to it at this time; that in
order for the Commission to grant any bonus density, as allowed
under 11-9-607 F 7. , detailed plans and information need to be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
ASHFORD GREENS
submitted to the Commission so that it can make such
determinations; for example the first provision for a bonus density
is a bonus for private, common open space, but to the Commission's
knowledge there is no private, common open space provided for, in
that the golf course is not a private, common open space; the golf
course is public; there is not information for the Commission to
determine how the other provisions of 11-9-607 F 7. should be
applied; it is concluded, however, that the Commission does like
the approach to the entire development but it wants more
information and detail, particularly plans for the medium density
areas; it is also the Commission's believe that an R-8 density,
even in the medium density areas, is too dense to be harmonious
with the existing development, particularly if the R-8 means eight
units to the acre including roads, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks
for those units; without a plan to show how the medium density
areas would be laid out to show how a greater density would be
worked into the number of acres, it is very difficult for the
Commission to approve the medium density concept; under the current
R-8 requirements if the units were single family dwellings there
could only be approximately 6.5 units to the acre without including
space for roads, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and those areas must
be figured in; if there were two family dwellings there could only
be five two family dwellings in an acre, not including space for
the roads, etc.
8. That if the conditional use permit is granted for the
planned unit development applied for, all ordinances of the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
ASHFORD GREENS
Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both as
modified by Section 11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety
Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements.
9. That Section 11-2-418 F provides that the Commission may
continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a decision; the
have
Commission hereby finds and concludes that it does not sufficient
information to ma~ke--a~d~e~~c~~i~'.o~r indicated above, and concludes
that this matter s - u1d be tabled anti- the necessary information
is provided.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CBAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED~~
..~
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides
that this matter should be tabled until additional information, as
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
ASHFORD GREENS
noted above in these Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, is
provided by the Applicant to the Commission, and any other
information requested by the Commission or City Staff.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
ASAFORD GREENS
~ ORlGif~AL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AHD ZOHIHG
RAVEN HILL - ALLAN CHANDLER
ANNESATION AND ZONING
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 20, T.3N., R.lE.
RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on September 13, 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 his engineer, Jim Merkle, and
having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for September 13, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the September 13, 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 AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
RAVEN HILL
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 19.57 acres
in size; it is located approximately a half mile south of Overland
on the east side of Locust Grove Road; that the adjacent property
to the East is the Sun Dance Subdivision; that to the South ie Los
Alamitos Subdivision; that to the North is Rim View Subdivision.
3. That Jim Merkle stated that it is south of Overland
Road, it is near Los Alamitos and Sundance Subdivisions with access
to them, that sewer and water would come from Locust Grove Road
d~enough to go under the Nine Mile Drain, that a computer water
analysis was needed, the pressurized irrigation would be installed
and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, that
the property is next to Rim View Acres and its large lots would
provide a buffer, that there will be a two car garage requirement,
and the development would be for 63 single family lots with a
density of about 3.2 lots per acre.
4. That the property is presently zoned R-T (Rural
Transitional) and R-1 (Estate Residential) in Ada County; 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.
5. That the type of development if for single family
dwelling units; that the minimum square footage per lot if 8,000
square feet; that the minimum square footage per structure was
stated to be 1,400 square feet; that the value will range between
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
RAVEN HILL
$100,000 to $150,000.00; that the subdivisions in the area have at
least a minimum house size of 1,500 square feet.
6. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
7. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property.
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. That there were two people testifying at the hearing,
other than the Applicant's engineer; that Fred Steinbroner, Sr., a
resident in Rim View Subdivision, testified that he wanted a wood
fence between his property and the subject property built before
construction; that the trees that are along the boundary between
his land and the Applicant's should be left to his side of the
fence; that he had a question on the easement for utilities; that
he wanted the trees on the land to remain.
11. That Fred Steinbroner, Jr. testified that he had no
objection to the subdivision but does not like what is being done
there; that the trees would be a natural barrier and any fence
should be built on the Applicant's side of the property; that there
should be buffering to protect the subdivision; and that he would
accept the trees as a transitional buffer.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
RAVEN HILL
12. The Ada County Highway District, the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District, City Engineer, City Planning Director, Idaho
Power, U. S. West, 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.
13. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and
amongst others he stated that the seasonal high ground water
elevation and the profile of the sub-surface conditions need to be
determined, that existing ditches need to be tiled, and that all
domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed except
that well may be used for non-domestic purposes.
14. That the Planning director submitted comments, some of
which were similar to those of the City Engineer, but also that a
development agreement was required as a condition of annexation,
that a non-combustible fence was required along Nine Mile Drain
outside of the Nampa & Meridian easement, that the rural
residential parcels in Rim View acres need to be buffered Hunter
Lateral needs to be tiled, that Applicant needs to coordinate with
Sundance Subdivision for stub streets.
15. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation
request was that the subdivision proposed for the land would cause
increased over-crowding in all three schools, that Mary McPherson
Elementary is at 1018 capacity, Meridian Middle School is at 130$
capacity and Meridian High School is at 1128 of capacity; that
before the District could support this subdivision, land needs to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
RAVEN HILL
be dedicated to the district or at least made available and that
another bond issue for the construction of schools needs to be
passed.
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 via mains currently being installed in S. Locust
Grove Road, as part of Sportsman Pointe No. 4 Subdivision.
20. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
RAVEN HILL
~J
U
feet to be included in houses in that zone, but the subdivisions in
the area have been required to have a minimum of l,500 square feet
as a condition of annexation.
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, town houses, 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, town houses 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."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
RAVEN HILL
'~
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.
26. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented .that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
27. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
RAVEN HILL
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
28. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
29. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
30. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
31. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
32. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
RAVEN HILL
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
33. That Section 11-9-605 L 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.
34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
RAVEN HILL
• i
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 City Council has judged this annexation and
zoning application by the provisions contained in Section 50-222,
Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City
Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the City Council 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 and not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
RAVEN HILL
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; that the development
agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the
Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or
personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee
or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met. The development agreement shall also address the landscaping
and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
RAVEN HILL
• ~-
rather than the individual lot owners. The Applicant shall adopt
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as a condition of annexation
and they shall require a mandatory homeowners association which can
assess dues and fees.
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, the
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department,
Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning
Director and these Findings and Conclusion shall be met and
addressed in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to
install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that a house size of
1,500 square feet must be met as has been required in other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
RAVEN HILL
subdivisions in this area.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall not be annexed or 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
ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
MOTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RAVEN HILL
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED:
Page 13