Loading...
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