Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1994 07-12
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 23, 1994: (APPROVED) TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED) 2. TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING: RAMBLE WOOD SUBDMSION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY DAN HARDEE: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 9, 1994) 3. TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 9, 1994) 4. TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BOND CAMPBELL: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR NEB-i COMPANY ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BILL GEYER: (APPROVED) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WATERBURY PARK NO.5 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RAMON YORGASON AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK NO.5 SUBDIVISION BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED) 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR 3T. LUKE'S REGIONAL. MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: (APPROVED) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC. (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY da ROSA: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RED CANYON CORPORATION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN AUKER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 23, 1994: q fpr¢vtcE~ 1. TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: recomrha~-~t.r• app.-o~.a..2 ~ c~.~ eoun~.2, 2. TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING: RAMBLE WOOD SUBDMSION (F-e~-~~""tJ PRELIMINARY PLAT BY DAN HARDEE: ~~ lc~trY ~• g''~- ~o rn¢ef .T-fa{{c'omn-e.~-1t ~p-~,~F.~yC'c~`rCvr?~b~.. 3. TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: f~z~/e unt.% ffa5. qt~{~-Z fev.r,•o-,~opev/az 4. TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: ~pPrvv,x.e~pn<.~.~o.?at - 2 /e'tl Cu- ~ ~rhfpcrta,fsw...Pa youz~ /oi~frie ~a .e ~ 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BOND CAMPBELL: ~ipprove ~/~ ~`e/G teals r.~ ~ytvo2a.~ recoe•....-~--dah~- ~ ~'lL 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR NEB-i COMPANY ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BILL GEYER: upprov.~ ~/~s c/L ~rtsd ors reco~me•ed-a tiD-.,. z`a elG 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WATERBURY PARK N0.5 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Ccpprvve -G~F E`C~~L ~~sr PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK NO. 5 SUBDIVISION BY ~ RAMON YORGASON AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: pasl a~- /ecovnsti-a.-datitn_I ~ L~/e 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: kpprove F/P`e' C/L pafJ on ~-avm-e6~-F~ /"ecor.n..~,~dafiDas {o Gj~C 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC. e~~ y ~ rte to ,~-~.epa-~-e- ~/~ ~ e%L 10. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC.: ~i~y u~fd~.n,ev fa Pre~al.e ~"/f £ e /C 11. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY da ROSA: c'~~y a,t7vr..ey fvPrcPa~.e. -~~~ ~ <": ~L 12. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: 14. PUBLIC HEARING: C NDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREE~ AND ASSOCIATES: Bice- c~tt`Urney {v ~r,~pau ~' ~ ~ C L 15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RED CANYON CORPORATION: ~i~f afhvney fv~J:-~~a~..e-~~~~c~L 16. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT: ~/{ i Cif J a ~tD vr~c~ ~ % -upa-~.e- ?~ e ~ 17. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN AUKER: ~,~y a trey ~ ~e~~ ~~~ _~ ~iL MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 12 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: Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Mike Wewers, Tom Vensley, Linda Wyatt, Thelma and Richard Bross, Aaron Sharp, Rich Allison, Raleigh Hawe, Craig Cavanaugh, Manuel daRosa, Doug Huliek, Deborah Fisher, Terry Swanly, Nanette Miller, Rob and Shelly Powers, Andy Carter, Robin Childers, Janine Weavers, Pat Nations, Randy Winwood, Bonnie Ferguison, Randy Ferguison, Patricia Sims, Pamela Walsh, David Stuart, Rex Larsen, Sharon Cummons, Gloria Lacy, Kanioly Hartroni, jim Merkle, Ted Hutchinson, Mike Shrewsberry, Mike Wardle, Jim Rees, Joe Glaisyer, Elizabeth Gwen, Dick Ross, Jay Jones, Tom Densley, Don Brian, Becky Bowcutt, Andy Carter, Craig Caven, Bart Ballentine, Randy Gwenwood, Lawrence Rackham, Lloyd Bone, Ruth Hunter, Susan Kelly, Jim Ballentine, Chuck Lee, Karrey Wase, Doug Danielson, Christine Mace, Troy Green, Stewart Green, Erma Lida, Lloyd Gerber, Ron Walsh, Rob Powers, James Jones: Johnson: Before we get into anything I might mention that we have 17 items, if you don't have an agenda, the first few items will probably go fairly quickly with no promises there. So, if you are here for a later item, you might want to get some fresh air it is up to you. We basically filled all the seats its like, we can accomodate only so many people. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 23, 1994: Johnson: Are there any additions, corrections or deletions? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we approve the special meeting held June 23, 1994. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea kTEM #1: TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOLPMENT AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: We tabled this item, is there a representative here for the Applicant that might come fonroard and address the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 2 Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my recollection of the issue was whether there was a lift station or a gravity sewer was what the hold up on the preliminary plat was. The annexation and findings were passed on with a favorable recommendation. You might want to ask Gary, we have met with him and provided him information on grade and what not and I think we have come up with a solution and Gary could probably answer your question on what we are going to do on that, so you might want to ask him. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Merkle? Mr. Smith, would you like to comment on that please? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, basically the sewerage of this area for Hartford Subdivision and Ramble Wood is, it is going to be necessary to sewer it to the west along the south side of Five Mile Creek. And it will require a lift of some type to get the sewage from this area into the interceptor. At this point we haven't nailed down exactly where the lift will be, but Jim Merkle have met and discussed it and he has done some, a little planning work and we have looked at some elevations. So, it looks like we are destined to have some kind of lift station out in this area. Whether it goes to the west at the interceptor which is west of Ten Mile Road or whether it is on the east side of Ten Mile Road at the west end of Parker Subdivision remains to be seen yet. But it definitely has the requirement of a lift station. We cannot cross Five Mile Creek by gravity to serve either Hartford or Ramble Wood. Johnson: Thank you Gary, any questions of either Mr. Merkle or Mr. Smith at this point? Rountree: Is that an agreeable situation? Smith: I think it is the only alternative that we have, unfortunately the elevation of the lift station or the elevation of the interceptor on the north side of Five Mile Creek is such that you can't cross Five Mile Creek and get into the sewer. Johnson: Any other question? Alidjani: Gary, so does that mean no matter what we are going to have that problem regardless lift station is the only answer'? Smith: Right, and it has happened to us on this subdivision, it happened to us on the one that was proposed by Robert Glenn, back at Cherry Lane. When the interceptor was built along Nine Mile Creek and we are also finding it along Five Mile Creek. It just wasn't at a depth grade enough so that the lateral lines can cross under the creek and into the interceptor. It is basically at the same elevation as the bottom of the drains, the interceptor is. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 3 Johnson: Any further questions? What is your pleasure? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council on this project. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Commission recommend approval of this project to the Ciry Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEAS, 1 NEA ITEM #2: TABLED AT JUNE 14, 1994 MEETING: RAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY DAN HARDEE: Johnson: I understand this name has been changed to Bramble Wood. Is there a representative that would like to address the Commission please come forward now. Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am Ted Hutchinson, I am with Tealeys Land Surveying. We have reviewed the comment sheets that were sent out by Mr. Smith and Ms. Stiles concerning the proposal. We tried to address each of those comments we have responded with a letter and a revised preliminary plat to Mr. Smith and Ms. Stiles. Again, with the sewer from Hartford 'rf it is going to go on a lift station, I believe that is the only way we would have access to sewer and that is our intention to extend and connect into that system with the Hartford Subdivision. Are there any questions that I might answer from the Commission? Hepper: Have you talked to the property owner in between these 2 pieces of property? Hutchinson: I believe Mr. Schaffer was here that night night, we will have to work it out with him to make sure we can either cross there or go north around his property. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation has a right of way in there along the north of Five Mile Creek. We are willing to work with that property owner. Johnson: Any other questions? All of you have this letter dated July 11 which was received today in response to our May 26th letter. Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you, any questions of staff? Alidjani: I have a question for Shari, Shari, there are 12 items in this letter, any problem with any of them. Have all your requests been answered? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 4 Stiles: Chairman and Commissioners, he has answered all of my questions, I still have a question on the BOR's right of way since that property is never going to logically be developed into anything. I want to see if they can work with that owner and go ahead and get part of the bike path installed. Pretty much everything else has been addressed, i do have a concern about the 20 planting strip easement. He had given me a revised plat but it would show that one of the tots is only about 61 feet once you take out that strip. Also, I would like to have a pedestrian access to the future pathway that he has indicated that he would provide but isn't shown yet. Otherwise, everything else has been provided. Johnson: Any other discussion? If not then I would entertain a motion. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I did want to make it part of the record that any time a sewer line crosses unimproved properties such as Mr. Schaffer's property or the Bureau of Reclamation's property that we do need to have a gravel access road over that sewer line for future maintenance. And any easements that are written need to include that provision that the access is constructed as part of the sewer line installation. Also, I think on the preliminary plat that they still need to work on the chord dimension of 40 foot minimum of the lots that have a turn around in front of them. And so that dimension will need to be worked out to make sure it complies with the Ordinance. Alidjani: How about the lot that is going to be turned into a 61 foot width after they take that 20 foot away. Smith: I don't have any comment on that. Alidjani: Well, technically, would we have a problem with that later on? Smith: tt is as Shari mentioned, what we have been trying to get is a 20 foot landscape lot common area that is separate from the lot that the dwelling sits on, but I guess that is a decision that Planning and Zoning and Council will have to make on this. Shari's concern is that once that 20 foot landscape strip is landscaped and completed the actual usable area of the lot is decreased by that width 20 feet. That one lot on the east side is quite deep but it is going to be narrow. I am just assuming, I didn't calculate to see how much actual usable square footage there is, but I am assuming that it meets the Ordinance requirement. Hepper: But the frontage would not meet the frontage requirement, is that correct? Smith: Well, it would as far as I review the ordinance, it meets the ordinance requirement. I am not positive of this but I think the only time we run into an unusable easement is when it is on an irrigation ditch or a ditch of some kind where it is actually not usable at all. r Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 5 Where is it an open waterway for example. Hepper: What would the building setbacks on the side yard be for something like that, would they be 5 feet on the side from the easement line? Smith: No, you would have a side street setback on both of these lots which would be 20 feet from the street right of way from Ustick Road, that is as close as you can get the structure to the street technically from the ordinance. Hepper: Well, we have a 20 foot easement, so technically they can build that house on the easement line, right on the fence line. Smith: Well, if there was a fence at that point that is true. Generally speaking, these beans are being landscaped and fences are being place on top of the berm. So, the down slope of the berm onto the lawn is actually used by the lot owner. Johnson: Any further questions? Any other discussion? If not then we need a motion. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting for the completion and resolution of the staffs concerns. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item again until staff concerns are completely satisfied, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: ft sounds like we should have that preliminary plat drawn up as it is going to be, that is the problem with these things we make so many changes to them and suddenly why we are approving something that half a dozen changes to it and we don't have a copy of it. ITEM #3: TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Johnson: Is there a representative for the developer here? Shrewsbeny: We would request that the Commission table this for one more meeting until August 9th so we can have the opportunity to redesign the subdivision to meet staff and Commission expectations. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 6 Johnson: Are there any questions of Mike? Shearer: I move we table this until next meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is August 9th, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED AT JUNE 23, 1994 MEETING: ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: Johnson: Is there is a representative from Ashford Greens here? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there were certain (inaudible) associated with this project because of the nature of it and 1 appreciate the fact that the Commission needed some additional time to give consideration. There are really 2 issues, we would be requesting the Commission to approve the preliminary plat and pass onto the City Council subject to the Council approval of some variance requests that will be submitted to them in an application. And those variance requests will not be for reduction of lot area, we will conform to the R-4 8,000 square foot minimum. However, because of the frontage on the golf course and deeper lots throughout the project we will be requesting a reduction in frontage in a variance application. We don' t have anything on the preliminary plat that is less than 75 foot average except on some curves. And we will be requesting in that variance then the length of culdesacs and block lengths and the fact that there are 6 units proposed on private drives. The other issue that the Commission struggled with was the 2 parcels that are designated at some future consideration in a conditional use application that must be submitted those medium density parcels at this. point are not being specifically requested for any approval other than acknowledgement that they are part of the overall plan. We believe that, proceeding to pass this onto the Council in concert with the variance application on those issues because of the nature of this project which is donating some 50 acres approximately to the City for the golf course it does at least move it forward so we can proceed with the first phase which will conform to the ordinance requirements and will allow the City to begin planning and construction perhaps this fall in preparation of the golf course for perhaps a year from now. We did provide a letter to several members which we were unable to make contact with all members of the Commission, I have copies here but basically we are asking of the Commission recommend the preliminary plat subject to the granting of a variance by the City Council for those items noted and subject to a conditional use applications for the 2 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 7 medium density parcels with consideration at that time for density transfer from Golf course property that will be dedicated by the Brighton Corporation to the City. We would be happy to respond to questions Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Mike, could you bring up your plat, I have a couple of specific questions that might generate some more. Starting with the club house area, is that pretty much where you plan a clubhouse and where is the parking? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, the clubhouse location is within feet fairly representative of the location because it is on the parcel that Kent Barney owns and is part of the land that is being dedicated for the other part of the golf course. The parking has been redesigned and again it is not a speck issue because is actually the City will be the implementation agency but, parking will be in this area and across the street. So essentially it will be in front of an across the street from the clubhouse. This is simply expanding the range or depth of the driving range and maintaining the use of the existing lake and then the first hole of the golf course in this location. So, it is a fairly fixed not much flexibility to where that would be placed. Johnson: Those 2 lots you made reference to where are they? Wardle: They would be these 2 medium density parcels lying in the heart of the southerly portion which is primarily what was known as the Thomas parcel and then over where the existing clubhouse is and the land in the vicinity or just north of the existing development, both would lye north of the Goff View estates and Chevy Lane Village No. 1, again subject to future approval. We acknowledge the fact that you are not granting approval tonight on medium density development. Johnson: Is it on that map where the present temporary clubhouse is? Wardle: It is not ident~ed but it is in this location, coming in off of Interlachen on the west and then just right next to the Eight Mile Lateral. Johnson: Are there any questions from the Commission at this point? Rountree: I still have the same concern I had previously and in looking into it a little more Gary correct me ff I am wrong, but Interlachen is functionally classified as a collector street and the way you have that lot set up it no longer functions as a collector street. It is my opinion that it should continue to function that way that was the intended purpose and that should be factored into the design of the development. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree, we understand that concem and we are willing to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 8 work through that. When the traffic study was presented to the Ada County Highway District and the staff has had a copy of that for some time as well, the concern was that a direct connection, and I think that is the key, a direct connection would serve as a funnel and pull a great deal of traffic yes on a collector status street in terms of construction but it is not collector in the way they are approved today because the lots front on Interlachen. There is a way to provide a connection but to down grade that so that yes there will be access to the Golf Course but not so convenient that it would in fact be the primary entrance and egress point for this project. Which I think would be a pit of a burden on the existing residence in that area. So, we are certainly willing to investigate that and we wouldn't be suggesting that if you approve this tonight that it is a done deal so to speak, that you are saying that does not have to connect through. But we would like to sit down and detail that with staff and perhaps in some kind of a working session on circulation issues. Let me just point out one other thing, the first phase of the project when we submit the first subdivision plat will be this loop, it will not include any of the culdesacs it will simply be the main entrance road this total connection point and so there will be a total circulation pattern. And it gives us time I think to work with staff and the agencies to get all the other particulars worked out including the issues of variance with the Council we'll have to address and then hopefully come back with solutions and proposals for the medium density parcels and get the consideration at that time. Johnson: For the record you are talking about the northwest comer of the project. Wardle: Yes Johnson: Those unnumbered lots, would you comment on those? Wardle: Yes, Mr. Chairman these lots were not included in the original preliminary plat submittal. It was felt at that time that the area would be used for maintenance and employee parking for the golf course but the adjacent property owner did not want to do that. So, they have proposed shifting the maintenance facility in some other location and utilizing that area on their property and this property as single family lots adjacent to the golf course. So, we would provide a revised preliminary plat that will include those parcels but that is the intent at this point. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle? Is everyone in receipt of that July 11th letter from Hubble Engineering? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I have extra copies. Johnson: What would you like to do? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 9 Crookston: Mr. Wardle, I have a question, you indicate in this letter of July 11, 1994 that the project was submitted as a PUD. Wardle: I think I also clarify the fact that we really only submitted a preliminary plat application with documentation on the overall intent of the project acknowledging the fact that there were issues particularly the medium density parcels that would have to be approved of a subsequent time through a process all of their own. And that was the letter that was submitted with the original application. Now we are calling it the golf course PUD because in reality that is what it is, but we still only requested a plat application or submitted a plat application. Crookston: If you did submit it as a PUD you would have to have a conditional use for the PUD. Wardle: We understand that, but in fact the single family lots with the variance as noted and the only one that we are requesting that is a dimensional request it would be a 75 foot frontage is the only thing that distinguishes the single family portion from a normal R~ subdivision. Hepper: And you are going to approach that from a variance request? Wardle: We will ask the Council if they would grant a variance request on the frontage, if they choose not to do so we will conform and the plat submitted will come back at 80 feet, but we believe that the nature of the project is different and would constitute consideration of a variance. Johnson: Anything further Mr. Crookston? Crookston: No Johnson: What action would you like to take? Rountree: I have a question for Wayne, if we take action on the preliminary plat as presented, we are recommending approval of a PUD that hasn't been through the request process or are we just recommending a large lot that will be subject to a future public hearing process? Crookston: That is the only way you could do it. Unless they had actually started out with a PUD with a conditional use. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass on a favorable recommendation Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 10 to the City Council on the preliminary plat noting that the plat contains 2 lots that will be subject to future preliminary use development hearings that transportation circulation will be resolved with staff and the lot sizes will conform with the City's subdivision ordinance. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for a favorable recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BOND CAMPBELL: Johnson: Are there any corrections or discussion? Rountree: Wayne, a correction on page 11, that word that keeps coming up. Johnson: Anything else? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Alidjani -Aye, Shearer -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you would like to pass onto the City? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the ~nditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that if the conditions are not met that the property not be annexed or if the property has been annexed that it be de-annexed. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 11 Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded for a favorable recommendation to the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR NEB-i COMPANY ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY BILL GEYER: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings and facts? If there is no discussion or corrections I will entertain a motion. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation for the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law including that the applicant enters into a development agreement prior to annexation and zoning ordinance be passed as that agreement is information that the Council needs to decide whether to pass annexation or zoning ordinance or deny the application. That 'rf the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and it not agreeable to entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Hepper:Second Johnson: We have a recommendation as read to pass onto the City Council a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR WATERBURY PARK NO.S SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK N0. 5 SUBDIVISION BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Waterbury Park No. 5 as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: A recommendation to the City Council. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law, including that the applicant enter into a development agreement prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being passed as that agreement is information that the Council needs to decide whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or deny the application. If the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and second to pass a recommendation to the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We have to deal with the preliminary plat now. • ! Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 13 Rountree: 1 have a question for Gary and Shari, do you still have some outstanding. concerns? Johnson: No comment from the staff. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we pass on a favorable recommendation for the preliminary plat. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #t3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Johnson: Is there any discussion or corrections, additions to the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Hepper -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation to the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Conditional Use permit requested by the applicant for the properties set forth in the application to be used for the medical facilities be approved under the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 14 Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, alt those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS, INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for the applicant? Jim Rees, 707 N. 27th St. Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rees: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we would like to develop a thing that is a little bit different for Meridian. This is a 55 and older subdivision, it is basically an enclave north of AJbertson's east of Wheel in Mobile Manor and south of James Court and another subdivision 1 am not sure what the name is. It is a 78 lot subdivision, we propose to develop it in a duplex style or zero lot line, this will require a conditional use permit. We want it annexed as an R-8. This drawing illustrates what we would like to do, there will be some (End of Tape) there is a sewer line that traverses the area on the north side of Five Mile Drain, and another one on the northerly side of the property adjacent to the (inaudible). Water lines have been stubbed off of Meridian Road along with the sewer line when Meridian Road was rebuilt for the future development. We will have to build a bridge across Five Mile Creek, that will require a (inaudible) permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. We have looked at the staff report and find most of them good, there are 2 items on the City Engineers list, item #1 he says (inaudible) should be included in the annexation request. That parcel was not purchased by the developer who is going to develop this and therefore I can't act for the other people that own this piece of property. And item #2, it says the sewer interceptor easements need to be unfenced and kept open with an access road for maintenance purposes. The unfenced is not a problem, but I owned this portion of property when the sewer access was given and we gave that sewer easement with the idea that it would not be in any way a detriment to the property and there was not mention of an access road at that point in time. Fact, it was assured that it would not interfere at all with how this might developed in the future. If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them. Rountree: Would you point that out on the, the sewer line. Rees: We would like to landscape this so that it blends in with the back of the tots that are adjacent to the canal. As a senior complex for people over 55 a lot of the seniors are a little worried about availability of areas to them. They need the security should we say, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 15 we would like to fence the property except along the canal we don't feel that would need to be fenced at all. I don't think people are going to be running in and stealing from that canal. If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Rees? Rees: We feel this is a desirable thing for Meridian and number 1 it will not impact the schools, it increases the tax base, it is an enclave and we have had a lot of demand from some of the seniors that would like something like this. Hepper: Are you going to build all of the buildings, or are you going to sell the lots? Rees: The lots will be sold, there will be a certain amount of builders there, I am not sure how many. I am just the engineer I think there are probably 3 or 4 builders. Hepper; Would you mind a stipulation, I would like to see somehow that the adjoining buildings are constructed in a similar manner. Rees: They will have to be, that will be one of the things it will be built as a duplex. Hepper: I would hate to see one builder go in and build one style and another builder with a different style with a common lot line. Rees: That can't happen the restrictive covenants would take care of that. As you well know the requirements fora 55 and older are hood requirements that they will be totally complied with. Along with the fire walls for the adjacent zero lot line requirement. Johnson: Any other questions? If not then we will give you an opportunity if there is sufficient testimony and you would like to address some of those items that come up. This is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to address the Commission on this application. Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hawe: The only question that I had on this particular project was the fencing in the properties along the property's northeast comer and that was some fencing to prevent any traffic, foot traffic from that club house section. And I presume that clubhouse is going to be a public clubhouse of sorts. t don't know what requirements are set forth for public recreational areas. But that is the question that I had, according to Mr. Rees, the entire project is going to be fenced except for the Five Mile Creek area. That is the only question that I had. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 16 Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Mr. Reese would you like to comment on the fence? Rees: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission we definitely would like to have a fence at least of 6 foot nature there for security reasons, we would not like people entering that. The clubhouse is basically for the senior citizens in there it is not necessarily a major public clubhouse. It is for them to play card games or shuffle board and we are looking at having a putting green. And it is primarily for the senior citizens, as you know how the senior citizens center here is used and this would be for this group. Johnson: Any comments from staff? Are you satisfied your items were addressed Mr. Smith? Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I just had one comment that I wanted to make in regard to Jim's comment on the item #2. We have had a policy for some time at least the length of time that I have been here that we need to maintain access to these sewer lines. Especially the interceptor lines. This particular line is a majority of the line along the Five Mile Creek Frontage of this project is a 24 inch diameter interceptor. There is also an 8 inch lateral line that serves Wheel Inn Mobile manor to the east, at this point in the undeveloped land we do have fairly good access to it as far as driving along the ditch bank. We have to access those manholes we generally have to access them with some type of equipment so I think we need to work out some means of maintaining an access way through there. Whether it is a gravel road or some kind of brick that through which grass can grow and it is not totally obtrusive to the aesthetics to the development would remain to be negotiated with the developer. But I feel very strongly that we need to maintain access for equipment to those manholes. It is probably quite unlikely that we have to access the manholes because of the size of the line, but nevertheless, stranger things have happened. We have had to the east of this project just recently we had a manhole lid removed from a manhole and the manhole was filled with enough rock to where it plugged up the sewer line and we actually had sewage coming out of the top of manholes. And this was you might say kid caused but nevertheless we had to access that manhole with equipment in order to clean it. So, that remains to be one of my major concerns with all developments. Item #15, since it is for 55 and older, I would like to withdraw because I don't qualify. Rees: Unfortunately I do, Mr. Chairman, the idea of the road, we actually wanted a path along there anyway so I think we can work with Gary and come out with some kind of an asphalt path because we want to have a circular loop. When I first read that I thought you wanted a gravel road back there. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 17 Smith: Not necessarily Jim, we just need some way to get equipment back there. Rees: I understand that, we have all faced that sort of thing in our lives. Johnson: Okay, sounds like we are in agreement, are there any other comments before I close the public hearing? If not then I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact prepared on this. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, t make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS INC: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, will the representative come forward please. Jim Rees, 707 N. 27th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey. Rees: Mr. Chairman, this is what we need to make the development what we want. I think you heard most of the pertinent facts. With the number of people here I will shut up and let some people comments. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Rees, any questions? Hepper: What is the square footage of the individual duplexes? Rees: They vary. Hepper: What is the minimum? Rees: We will comply with your minimum, I believe it is a 1000 but it may be 1200. These will be single family so they will be a little more. There will be some nice units in there. Johnson: Any other questions? This is a public hearing anyone else want to address the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 18 Commission on the Conditional use permit? Any comments from staff? Any comments from Mr. Smith? Hearing none, seeing no one I will now close the public hearing. We need action on conditional use application. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared on the conditional use permit. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY daROSA: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if a representative is here for the applicant would you please come forward at this time. Manuel daRosa, 2615 Springwood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. daRosa: Currently we are working on the ACHD requirements which is to replace the sidewalk and also the pipe the Nampa Irrigation that runs on East 2nd street. I have 4 bids on the sidewalk now and it should be done within 2 to 4 weeks. Johnson: Are you basically saying, without putting words in your mouth that you have no problem with any of the other recommendations from ACHD? daRosa: No, we have no problems. Johnson: And do you have the comments from the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, they are dated today. daRosa: No I have not Johnson: We will make a copy available to you. daRosa: I would like to make one request and that is if I could 1 would like the sidewalk itself is in pretty bad shape and I would like to know if I can get that condemned? I spoke with 2 of the contractors and they said that if I can get that condemned that it would not Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 19 be necessary to pay for a permit. Johnson: Mr. Crookston, are you familiar with any law regarding that, is that in our jurisdiction anyway? Crookston: If it is in the public right of way which it probably is, you are going to have to go though ACRD and work that out with them. daRosa: I did call Cal at ACHD today and he basically told me no but they truly did not know a yes or no answer. So, maybe I should look further into that. Johnson: Thank you, any other questions of Mr. daRosa. Rountree: I would like to have you explain a little bit about what you are proposing for the property. daRosa: I am proposing that we turn this residence, it is a 2 story home built in 1902 I would like to keep it a land mark in the City of Meridian, I want to put professional and or retail offices in there, such as a law firm or real estate agency. It is a pretty old home and would like to keep it a part of the City. Johnson: What is the address of the property? daRosa: 134 East Pine Street. Johnson: Any other questions? This is a public hearing anyone else like to address the Commission on this item? Any comments from staff? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What action would you like to take on the conditional use permit. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 20 Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative for the applicant would you please come forward and be sworn at this time. Joe Glaiser, 3955 North Cowboy Way, Star, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glaisyer: I have our engineer here to answer any technical questions you have. Johnson: Are there any questions for Mr. Glaisyer? Rountree: Joe, would you explain what you intend to do with the R-8. Glaisyer: The parcel is about a 21/2 acre parcel and ft is rather narrow in scope. My idea was to do a townhouse project all one level. We are trying to market to adult living. I did the same project in Boise and it was a little bit smaller but almost all the occupants were retired. And I think the same market is here in Meridian. There will be a homeowners association to take care all of the common areas. It would be a nice project for Meridian. Johnson: What would be the number of living units. Glaisyer: The zoning would allow for 40 units, 20 buildings. Crookston: Where is the property Joe? Glaiser: It is just south on Locust Grove off of Fairview, almost right across the property from that acreage there that is going to be a shopping center or is zoned commercial. Shearer: tt is the north edge of Carol Subdivision. Hepper: Do you plan on doing any fencing? Glaiser: Yes, the whole area will be fenced, you want access to an from Locust Grove. Johnson: I am a little confused on the size, the application says 5 acres and you said 21 /2. Glaiser: It is 5. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Glaiser? If not then we will reserve the right to allow you an opportunity for rebuttal if you need it. This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the Commission at this time. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 21 Elizabeth Gwen, 1515 South Carol, was sworn by the City Attomey. Gwen: The question that we have, I live in Doris Subdivision, it is just south of this property. We have acre and 1/4 lots to about a 1/3 of an acre is the smallest lot in our subdivision. And we have animals there and one of the neighbors whose property is right adjacent has 3 mules and their question is are these that are going to move in here going to be appraised to know that they might hear mules hee-hawing at 5:30 in the morning. And there might be a little wilt of manure in the air and things like that and we don't want complaints about that. We would like to see a really good sturdy fence between our subdivision and this subdivision because with animals on the other side there. I think most of the people would be pleased if it is marketed to retired people or older people because the school is already over crowded there as you know. Another question 1 had is that culdesac that goes into the street is one long culdesac, is that going to cause problems because it is way over, I was under the impression that culdesacs can only be 200 feet long. Johnson: 450 feet is the way our ordinance reads, anything beyond that requires a variance which would have to go before the City Council. Gwen: So that would be alright as far as fires and things. But mainly I think most of the people in our subdivision had a question about the fence. They wanted to make sure there would be at least a 6 foot sturdy fend of some kind and hopefully a screening fence. And also the animal question whether or not the people would know when they moved in that there would be animals next door and not have problems with that. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Apparently not, anyone else from the public like to come forward. Dick Ross, 1975 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attomey. Ross: I have some questions for the people that sat before me here. I would like to know what density means, like high medium and this type of thing. We keep hearing these words but no one seems to know what it is. Johnson: Well, maybe you haven't asked the right people. Would you like to comment on density Mr. Smith. It is actually a mathematical formula that has to do with the number of units per acre. Anything to add to that? The R-4 is theoretically 4 units to the acres. And most of the applications are coming in around 3.5 or less for R-4. R-8 means 8 units per acre, we have an R-15 zone. Ross: That is part of it, it is like. On North Locust Grove Road right now at the present Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 22 time I can't even get out of my driveway. The way this thing is set up there is no access going out the bads side of it, it is all going to come out of the front. And this is going to put, and if you figure this many vehicles there is going to be at least 40 and probably more like 60. And this just puts a lot of traffic out along this road here. Johnson: That is a good point, the ACHD in their findings estimate the vehicles trips per day to 160 for this proposed unit in their findings to us. Ross: My next concern is this fencing, I live next door to the (inaudible) I don't know what is going in there but I would like to see a fence in there like the lady before me talked about that is high enough and that screens the area. And you probably can't answer that but I would like to see the gentleman come back here. All I see him is come up here and present a deal there is no plat, no drawing no nothing to show what he is going to do. That is all I have at the present time. Johnson: Any questions? Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Jay Jones, 1426 North Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jones: Mr. Commissioners and Chairman, I live directly south of this property recently built a new home in November. One of the reasons we moved to the area was because of the very low density of our subdivision, the open space and the area that we have to move around 1 guess you can call it. I have a grave concern with this area right behind us we have as you stated 8 units per acxe going in versus the .75 in our subdivision per acre. And then on the opposite side in Gem Parka 3.5 per acre ratio. That is my first and probably greatest concern. I would like to complement the developer on the idea of an upper end subdivision and fencng it in. Elderly folks coming in there I don't object to that. He hasn't provided any provisions on limits of who can go in there. Younger families can go in there, he assumes that price is in the $90,000 range would prevent anyone but upper income elderly folks to move in there. I think that with a lot of double income younger families would be able to move in there as well. That would pose a problem for our overcrowded school which is currently trying to make way for those kids out of Hunter Pointe, Pheasant Grove and the other new subdivision there at Ustick and Locust Grove. That is probably my biggest concern. I do not oppose development, I am in the construction business myself and I don't oppose development but I do have some grave concerns there. The other thing is on this end of the City there is no public park area. You are going to add another 40 units in this area and it is already overcrowded with no park access to any of the subdivisions. Also, within that area with talking to Mr. Smith early on, it appears that the sewer is a problem in that area. I am not completely up on the elevations of the sewer in that area. I talked with some of the neighbors in Chateau Meadows and John Parker, the water pressure in this area of the City has been very low. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 23 Water also tends to be a problem in this area. Locust Grove access, it has been mentioned once already, it is a very congested street, it is a very narrow street. They did widen it as it reached Fairview but yet there is still limited access to Locust Grove and is very overcrowded. One of the provisions that the owner has not touched on is in talking with (inaudible) he mentioned that they would be owner occupied, there is nothing stating that is the case. These are a duplex on a zero lot line but any investor that would want to, there is no provision they wouldn't be able to have those as rental property. One other thing would be the income ratio per lot, not income ratio but price. In Gem Park my estimate would be that most homes in there would be worth $100,000 to $130,000, in Carol subdivision anywhere from $120,000 to $200,000, and then we are talking about $85,000 to $90,000 per unit in this area. There is some difference there. Those are my concerns. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Jay? Jones: I would like to mention one thing that unless many of these concerns are answered I would recommend to the Commission and Mr. Chairman that is area not be annexed at this time until those things can be addressed. Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward please? Tom Densley, 1910 East Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Densley: I have the same concerns that Jay has, Jay is between me and the property. Once again we bought in there because of the low density and my major concern is high density that is going to be in this lot. I too am not against developing because I know that is the reason why they bought it but if we can control it maybe break down the density a little bit, increase the amount of money to buy the land to keep it in the same level as ours to not bring our price levels down. It would be a good development but packing them in there that tight and at that price I feel that would bring the values of our properties down. The only good part of that is our taxes would go down because our property values wouldn't be very good. That is not what we are looking for, along with Jay I would recommend it not to be approved if that was the case. If it is going to be at the same level that they are talking about right Hero. I know that he has done other developments, I would be interested in seeing those, he probably does a good job. And maybe we are a little bit worried and shouldn't be. But those are the concerns that we have, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else like to come forward? Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 24 Brian: As you all know I am the owner directly across the street from this proposed project. I have a few concerns, one would be the zoning of R-8, I think there is an R-8 to the north and this properly and then Carol Subdivision to the south. And Carol Subdivision as you see on your plans is pretty nice subdivision with large lots, which is zoned R-8 and I don't know why. That is not going to change and fill it up with houses in their backyards. That is kind of a given on each side of this project and what a perfect place for an R-4 transitional zone to accommodate the difference between R-8 and the Carol subdivision. That is one comment t have. Johnson: I think the Carol subdivision is in the County. Rountree: That is a county zone. Johnson: That doesn't equate to our R-8 zone, they have different definitions of zones. Brian: However, you can see my point. 1 am glad to hear he is doing fencing around the entire project, this is something Meridian has needed for along time on all projects. My concern is when they do develop this project I would like to see the fence go up first before they start building to control all the building that is going to be following. As they have developed around me over the last 5 years I have had nothing but construction trash in my ditches and yards and it is quite a problem as we all know. I would like to see the fence and some kind of protection against all that mess that is going to be blowing my way. I know this is an annexation hearing and there is not a preliminary plat but I am concerned about is there any access from the Jericho side, a stub street or an easement. And that is basically all I had, it is going to get developed sooner or later and I would just like to see it a quality project and this sounds like it could be as long as we control it. I don't want to see a real high density in there if I can help it. The development itself will help the traffic situation in my case because when he develops the land he is going to have to improve that street and make it wider on his side and that way when 1 am pulling in and out of there with my horse trailer I can park over there on the other side of the road and wait for the tr8~etckstop to pull in my driveway. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any Questions of Mr. Brian? Anyone else like to come forward and address the Commission? Mr. Glaiser would you like to comment on some of the comments? Glaiser: The biggest concern as I understand tonight is the fencing, and I have no problem with the fence 1 said 1 would put it up and I will. I will even put it before we start construction. The property itself alludes to a higher density versus lower density because obviously when you take the 50 foot right of way for the street you don't have a whole lot to build on and it is not inexpensive piece of dirt. As far as the mules are concerned I will sale that as an amenity package so people living on that side can pay a little extra for their Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 25 lot. Mr. Jensen who is the broker for Jensen real estate had sent out a letter to all of the people within the 300 foot radius of the property and had asked of them to calf him to answer any questions they might have and also to take them down to the same project that I did in Boise which is the equivalent of this one. I think if those people went down and saw this project they would understand that while they have some fears of higher density the impact is really not there. They can go down and witness it because they are all one level, it is all. fenced, it is beautifully landscaped, they can talk to the homeowners down there and see what cliental we are trying to bring in there and I think they will be overly pleased and some of the fears will be forgotten. Johnson: What is the address for the property you just made reference to? Glaiser: It is Boise Avenue and Law Street, and the street is called Silverton Lane. It is a private lane, 1515 Silverton Lane would be the first unit. And it is just off of Boise Avenue and turn right down Law Street and it is right there. Johnson: Any other comments? Glaiser. We do have a preliminary plan of what the elevations and floor plans will look like if anyone would like to meet us outside the meeting and see what it looks like, what kind of product we are thinking of putting in there. 1 will offer to anybody that would like to look at that. I appreciate your time and thank you. Johnson: Any comments from staff? Last chance for the public, seeing no one then I will Gose the public hearing. We need findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared. Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the city attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (FIVE MINUTE BREAK) Johnson: Call the meeting back to order please. ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 26 Johnson: I will now open the public hearing,rf there is a representative for the applicant please come forward at this time. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: The parcel involved is 38.25 acres, it is located just south on Franklin Road and west of Meridian Road. The parcel is currently located in Ada County. It carries a zoning designation of R-14 which you can see right here in this cross hatched area. And then this portion of the property carries a designation of rural transition. The rural transition zone is basically an interim zone that when public services become available they have the ability to be rezoned at that time. The R-14 is a medium to high density zone in the county it allows multi family dwellings. (End of Tape) We basically tried to choose a zone that was closest to what is existing on the property currently, the request was for an R-15 that is the zone that is most comparable to the existing R-15 on the west side of this property. We do not plan to take advantage of that R-15 zoning, the project that you will be reviewing under the conditional use has a density of 5.94 dwelling units to the acre. If you look at your comprehensive plan this particular area, the Franklin Road and Meridian Road, Franklin is a minor arterial, Meridian Road is classified as a collector that area is discussed in the comprehensive plan as a mixed use area. We have a veterinary clinic here, there is mini storage just west of us and there is a kind of construction yard that abuts us here. We have 4-plexes, duplexes on the west boundary and then some single family dwellings. The Hope Arms apartments are just east of us. There is an existing mobile home platted subdivision on the comer of Meridian Road and Franklin. We have the Hoff Building center just north of us on the other side of Franklin. So the area is basically mixed use and that is described in your comprehensive plan where you will find industrial, light industrial, commercial, multi-family and residential. Therefore that is why we have submitted the rezone for the R-15 and we based that on the existing zone that the county has on it as far as trying to find something comparable. I will reserve my comments concerning the project when the conditional use comes up if that is okay, unless you prefer to address the 2 simultaneously. Johnson: Any questions of Becky? This is a public hearing anyone from the public like to come forward? Andy Carter, 765 Hanover Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Carter: My only concern is in the zoning part of this is in your Planning & Zoning Ordinances that as Becky mentioned there will be a contractors yard abutting this and as a requirement it says, "contractors yards will be located 300 from any residence except for an owner's residence." That is on page 57 of your Planning & Zoning Ordinance and it abuts a junk yard that is unfenced. And I see, in all the information that has been Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 27 presented I see no, they don't want to address screening or fencing of either one of those of the residential area buffering it as far as the zoning that is all I have. Johnson: I have a question, are you talking about the property when you mention to quote you "junk yard" are you talking about that section on the southeast corner of the project? Carter: Yes, I am not positive that abuts it but I believe it would probably be within 300 feet. I know that the contractor yard does about it. Johnson: The contractors yard is Hinkle McCoy. Carter: Yes Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public? Craig Cavanaugh, 581 Linhurst, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cavanaugh: 1 have a petition signed by most of the faces that you see in this room here, 229 of them to be exact not allowing this annexation. Also a couple letters, probably more letters to follow that are addressed to the City Council as far as why the homeowners in the Stubblefield subdivision feel that this is not an appropriate place for a mobile home court. I kind of speak collectively but there are probably a lot more people that are going to talk about this thing. Some of our main concerns deals with schools, I think everybody talks about that. Water is a serious problem, we are concerned about the overcrowding in Meridian. My main concern is the way of life that I moved to Meridian for, I live within 300 feet of where this development is supposed to be. To me it is moving the other direction. I don't think Meridian needs to involve or have that much density condensed to the central hub of the City. I feel that annexing it R-15 next to ours is ludicrous. The other problems that you have with the existing fire department and police department now the City's roads coming in and out of that particular area I don't think they are up to snuff. I think you are going to put a definite workload on them. I am concerned about my own personal safety as well as the children's safety in the area. You have a public park across there by Meridian Speedway. You have a swimming pool over there that my children ride there bikes to. If you zone that R-15 they are not going to do that anymore and I am sure a lot of people in here feel the same way. If something was to be done like this I would want to see a real comprehensive study on how they are going to develop, I would like to have the covenants out in the open and know exactly how they are going to control the quality. Are they going to put in a bonified mobile home park or are they going to put in pre-fab. I want some kind of study or some kind of plan on the buffer plan between the mobile home park and the existing housing tract that is there. The other thing that kind of bothers me is that I tried to get a comprehensive plan from City Hall and was not able to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 28 acquire one prior to the meeting and I wanted to follow up that I tried to get a copy of the new one. I started on the 5th of July and was told every day after that it was at the printer, I would like to get a copy of that. Johnson: Apparently we did get those this afternoon, we don't have our copies either. Cavenaugh: These will be the new ones. Johnson: The one before it was older than 1993, these are the ones that we adopted in 1993. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, he handed you a document. Cavenaugh: I think that pretty much covers it, I Think the main concern I heard other people talk about being zoned .75 and worried about an R-8 here I am sitting in an R-8 on probably one of the largest lots in that subdivision and a $100,000 home and thinking about an R-15 next to it is bothering me a bunch and that is why you see all the people behind me. Also, my wife took this picture, I wasn't aware of it, I don't know whether you folks set this up or if Troy Green did it is a public notice of the hearing, 1 don't know if there is some kind of statute that says you are supposed to post notices on the property that you are supposed to have a hearing. Johnson: There is an ordinance. I don't know where this came from. Cavenaugh: Well, if you will notice in the picture it says Tuesday the 15th and not Tuesday the 12th. The sign is probably 8 inches by 15 inches it is not adequate. I went throughout our subdivision and notified the subdivision that this was happening. My wife did all the leg work, probably walked 5 to 10 miles throughout the subdivision trying to get people notified that this was happening. If you folks are going to do something like this, really notification needs to be out in the open and as visible as possible. Alidjani: I don't think we did that. Cavenaugh: 1 wasn't pointing fingers or anything, we found some small articles in the newspaper, there were 40 people notified in our neighborhood out of 160. That is all. Johnson: I appreciate your comments and all the work you have done on it. Let that be the last of the clapping because that just delays us, that doesn't really add anything to the meeting. Anyone else from the public. Mike Weavers, 550 Linhurst, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 29 Weavers: I would also like to voice my opposition to a trailer park going in this area. We have presented you with 229 names on a petition and I think the turnout here tonight is very out spoken. It should give the Commission some idea of how we feel about this. We are opposed to an R-15 zoning with a conditional use. I would like to also ask what is going to be done about police and fire protection about the schools, about the traffic. I would like to know if there has been an impact study. Will the lots in this trailer park be rental spaces, will they be owned by the residents. What are the buffer zones, are there going to be any buffer zones. So far from Troy Greens and Associates we haven't received too much information other than they plan on doing this. And they are ready for a fight, we feel that previous mistakes made in zoning and that area shouldn't be compounded by making another mistake by zoning an R-15 with this conditional use. We would like to see comparable zoning to what the residents in that area already are zoned, an R-4, R6 and no higher than an R-i3. Mr. Rees during his testimony commented on his duplexes that they wouldn't be poverty acres and we hate to see poverty acres moved into our neighborhood. We are concerned about the type of subdivision that this brings in and we feel that it brings us that much closer to being the other bedroom community and with the same atmosphere as the current bedroom community of Boise and that being Garden City. And we really don't want that. As residents we would request that this zoning be denied and annexation denied until a request worthy of our city be applied for. Johnson: Anyone else from the public? John Labbe, 733 Barrett, was sworn by the City Attorney. Labbe: I have several concerns about the possibilities of this annex and R-15. Essentially it is from the standpoint of the impact on school districts. I am an educator in the school district and the schools as they are, are running at near capacity 'rf not more so. Meridian elementary has somewhere around 40 or more teachers that don't even have their own classrooms, the teachers have to travel from classroom to classroom. This is very difficult to do as an educator and I think the district, we just passed a large bond issue and in the future whether we are going to be able to get another bond issue passed in the future is difficult to say at this time. A large project like this would have a significant impact on the District. I as a patron of the district with my children all going to be in this District feel that it is a concern that we must address before we bring in such a large amount of homes into the district. Also, just other concerns, water, the depletion of the water in the area is a main factor. And I would say that I really do agree with the previous gentlemen that were up here speaking saying that it is a concern and I would really like to see further investigation done in this regarding their concerns. Johnson: Anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 30 Bart Ballantine, 2505 Esquire Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantine: I am the realtor that represents the sellers and I just want to make a brie# statement. Becky will follow through with more details, I represent Jim Ballantine my brother, Art Trapner, and Glen Hudson who are the owners. One thing I think that didn't get out on the notice was that this is going to be a senior park. Believe me I think that any of us would like to live in a senior park. We do a lot of marketing, that is one of our main arms is senior parks, I would say about 30°r6 of our business is there. I certainly would find that one of the best places to live. One of the last ones that we sold the manager came through before we sold and said you have 3 lines of morning glory in here and these have to be pulled before the next owner can come. You don't find a better landscaped area environment than a senior park. Roses, I tell you I would vote anytime of any day to have a senior park next to me of 6 units per acre. It is a tremendous environment. A lot of these complaints that are coming up about the schools, we don't have a school problem with the senior park, but we do have a lot of seniors in Meridian that have been around for years and are looking for something like this. A lot of people prefer manufactured housing and manufactured housing today is the same quality as the stick built home. And a lot of the people go south in the winter they like a secure environment. I am going to leave it Becky to give details of the development itself. It is a very high standard development with screening and fencing and that sort of thing. The lower than normal service cost, you don't get a lot of domestic violence in senior parks. It is one of the nicest places to go. These units that will be in the parks, in Boise are $60,000 to $90,000 units. Most people pay cash when they come in and they have been through the teaming experience of life they are willing to live peacefully. And that is a nice neighbor to have. Tax wise, the last mobile home we sold was a 1977 the taxes per year they pay $450.00 in taxes and that is a 1977. Other than that I just wanted to put a resketch in here while all these comments are coming in. Alidjani: Just for the record you are such a pro at senior parks do you live in right now. Ballantine: I would like to, but my partner is 35 so I don't qualify. Johnson: Anyone else from the public that hasn't testified? Randy Winwood, 1401 North 59th, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attomey. Winwood: I voice many of the concerns as Mr. Cavenaugh and the other gentleman. I own property at 671 Penwood. I moved to Nampa approximately 3 months ago. One of my concerns was children with Franklin being a major road. There are no sidewalks, gravel, kids travelling back and forth to the convenience store. We have had 2 kids hit on that road in the last 2 years. That eases my mind that it is going to be a senior park and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 31 there won't be as many kids. But the traffic, I believe it is a 120 space mobile home park and the traffic will still increase. And that road is not safe to travel now, it scares me to death to think of the kids travelling along that road. I cannot imagine putting anything above an R6 in that area until something is done with the roads and not to mention the water and everything else. Thank you. Johnson: For the record you made a comment about the number of spaces, ACRD in their comments said the park would include 227 rental spaces. Anyone else from the public, anyone else that hasn't testified? Lawrence Rackham, 305 West Franklin, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rackham: The questions that have been voiced here this evening I share with most of those that have been voiced concerning density. I own property in that area and some of the properties adjacent to this development. The concern that I have is the impact on that area for the high density, for the roads. The real estate gentleman indicated some intentions, my question would be are those going to be in covenants that would be his suggestions and intentions would they be included in covenants that would be placed on that property if it were of a reasonable density or would they be willing to adjust that. Were there limitations and requirements for the (inaudible) or is it possible for those requirements to be given to tenants or owners in that area would be my question. I understand the Franklin Road has some intentions for development or widening, is that in the plans here in the near future. And what impact before or after this development would that have on the changes with the road. What is the timing for that, are they coinciding to that degree. What is the development for the road supposed to be would be my question to somebody here, does anybody know? Johnson: I can read you what ACHD said on that specific thing and of course that information is available from them. Franklin Road is scheduled for improvements in the ACRD 5 year work program, therefore staff recommends and it goes on to say what they would like as a deposit into a trust fund for the widening of the road. They didn't give us a speck date here they probably have a date on the drawing board but those dates are subject to change. Rackham: Funds and so forth I imagine dictate that. Do you as the planning commission have an opportunity to set requirements for covenants on lots or does that go with the zoning? Johnson: Those covenants will be presented and perhaps later this evening when Becky Bowcutt comes back before us we can get answers to some of your questions and see where it goes from there. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 32 Rackham: As far as the area itself, the property owners that have expressed concern as I mentioned I share because there is already development in that area. This completely negates or would have a definite impact, a negative impact on. I think the first lady mentioned that there was some industrial across the street at some distance but that industrial is to a degree quite a bit away from this area. The area surrounding it is headed in a different direction than on the north side. And the impact of what they are talking about here would definitely negate that. Thank you. Lloyd Bone, Parma, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bone: They approached me through a mutual friend to ask them to help find the suitable piece of property to build a mobile home park for them to own and that was in March. spent many days on this, we have looked at lots of properties. I share the concerns that many of these people do, I am sure that Troy and Associates share those same concerns because we have talked about them over and over again. They want something that they can be very proud of. This is their deal, they want it to be nice, I have seen the plans, it is going to be extremely nice, it is going to be an asset to the community. Many of the things that these concerns that have been voiced tonight, I am sure when Becky gets finished will no longer be a concern, they have been considered very strongly. That is all I want to say. Ruth Hunter, 420 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hunter: My concern is well this land is right up above me, it adjoins me. I live directly south of there and I have some problems in the past with them building storage units up against my land. And at that time and it still is agricultural and 1 am afraid they are going to do the same thing with this on the north side. Of course that wouldn't be as bad as what it is right now. I thought they were going to put a berm by the storage sheds, it looked like he was going to start one but now it is built right up to my back yard and it is filled with junk. And I think, if they are going to put this in they should be fenced and a berm should be put through there. I know this is an eye sore right along the side of my fence, I built it up with trees so you can't see in my main yard, but the other part, my back yard you can definitely see all the junk that this man has come along and put in there. And before when my husband was alive about 10 to 13 years ago we came down here and somebody else was thinking about buying Cooper's property. We had got up and they said they would put a berm up there and I know what can happen. I am selling, I know my property is going to go down in value if (inaudible). I don't want to see it happen again that is all, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 33 Susan Kelly, 604 Pennwood, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kelly: (Inaudible) for the last 6 years that I lived in the home that I do. My property sits right next to the field, what I am going to see when I do dishes is 240 mobile homes. It is garbage, how I am going to sell my property if I ever want to sell it. Somebody is going to look and say look at this she lives next to a mobile home court. So what is going to happen to my values and my lifestyle. And in addition to the fact it is going to cut right down in next to our property. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Jim Ballentine, 10250 Whispering Cliffs, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballentine: I share a lot of the concerns of the people here this evening. We purchased this land about 20 years ago and it was with a great deal of dismay that I noticed that a contractors yard, a used equipment yard, the storage sheds, all of the light industrial and commercial encroachments that were coming on our land. To tell you the truth when I found out I knew that it was going to be a residential type development but when I found out is was going to be a retirement, real nice retirement type park I was very glad. That spares me from going into some kind of development that I think that 1 would not be proud of in an industrial type development right next to residential. So, I was quite pleased when 1 found out the quality of the development that they are doing. Several years, it hasn't been that long, I wasn't too concerned about retirement possibilities but as you can see by the color of my hair I have become more and more concerned about issues that concern the retired people. And I do think that they need a place to retire and that doesn't price them right out of range. I am also very concerned about the schools, the kids that go to the schools and I am pleased that people my age have already raised their kids so there is nobody coming in to impact the schools. I just wanted to get the input of the neighborly community here. Crookston: I have a question, you are one of the owners of the park. Ballentine: I am. Crookston: Is the property that you own, is that a separate parcel or do the 3 own all of this property? Ballentine: Art Trapper and myself and David (inaudible) and Dennis (inaudible) own 30 acres of the parcel. Another gentleman, Glen Hudson, owns the parcel that opens up onto Meridian road. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 34 Johnson: Anyone else from the public? Chuck Lee, 600 Edgewood Lane, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I represent the Meridian School District Administration and our concern is always the overcrowding of schools. And our wishes is that if you folks do approve this tonight that you would make them assure some way that it will remain a park for the elderly so it doesn't add a whole bunch of kids to our school district. Maybe approved as a park for the elderly and as time goes on it could change and families move in with children and that would affect our schools. That is all I have. Carrie Wase, 495 Linhurst, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wase: I have a question, I don't know about the people here but 1 have gone out and looked for places to live, rental homes and what not. I was always told that there is no age limitation on places, it is like a City ordinance, you can't discriminate because of age,. because somebody has children, is that a truism, am I confused, can they say it can only be this age living in this place and hold that up? Johnson: Well, one of the obvious questions that we will be asking the developer is that very same thing how they plan on restricting it to a senior park. Anyone else? Doug Danielson, 489 Pirnie Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Danielson: Most of my good points have already been said quite a few times. I just have a few questions, the first question is, is this the last opportunity for the public to speak. Johnson: No, I'm glad you brought that up this is the first step in several steps to get something like this approved. We are basically a sounding board for you the public. We want your testimony that is why we record, it will be typed and passed onto the City Fathers. What we will do following this is what we have done earlier if you have been watching and listening we will probably have findings of fact and conclusions prepared by the Attorney and what that does is address this application to our ordinances from a legality standpoint. Then following that which is our next meeting it goes onto the City Council which there is again a public hearing process where you get an additional opportunity. There is no approval made tonight, there may be recommendations but not approval. Danielson: That is much more of an answer than I really needed, 1 was awake for that other portion of the meeting but didn't see much public input except for the developer involved in those other transactions earlier in the evening. One other question, is this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 35 meeting just kind of the starting out informational point of this project, the reason I ask is I live outside your apparent send out mail to notify I live across the street, in the notice it said you can come by the City office and pick up copies of the applications and I thought this letter doesn't make a whole lot of sense maybe I will get more information out of there maybe I can tell what they are doing. But when I pick up the applications the application referenced a lot of attachments which weren't part of my copy. So they had different points on it, on 1.13 and 14 said see attached map which gave very little information. I didn't come intending to speak tonight but I would have liked to have come to make an educated case to express my concerns but I had difficulty getting information. I would like to know how as this process goes on how is the information available to the public. Do I come talk to the planning commission during business hours to find out what is going on with this project. Johnson: Not the planning commission, I am doing this at a risk of giving you more of an answer than you want. You go to the City Clerk and you ask for the information and if there is a map missing or something that will be made available to you. Anyone else? Christine Mace, 530 Linhurst Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mace: Linhurst Place, the house I live in is right next to the field and we have been lucky to enjoy this field for the 15 years that we have owned a home there. We knew it would be developed some day. If it is a senior citizen mobile home park I applaud the developer, my mother lives in one in Boise and it is beautiful and we need those. If we can be assured that is what it would be then it can be something I think we can live with. 1 am still concerned with the R-14 rate. Another concern that I have besides the traffic going out onto Franklin and onto Meridian Road is Pennwood and Barret Street right now just kind of dead end into that field and would this park have access through our already very crowded subdivision to get to Franklin, we are all trying to find different ways. I work at Meridian High School and when I try to get onto Franklin to get to school I sit there for 20 or so minutes trying to get out because it is so congested. And so Barrett Street and Penwood Street were 2 really big concerns of ours. And the amount of homes going in. I know we will look out someday and see homes behind us but we don't really want to look out and see 3 homes right across our back yard, we feel that is just too much. Thank you. Crookston: I have a question, do you want Pennwood and Barrett to go through? You said that they dead ended on the property. Mace: No, when we first moved in, I guess a long range plan at the time was that Penwood would kind of wind all the way around to Meridian Road and it would go through another subdivision. Like Pennwood goes west and eventually hits Linder Road, but no as far as 1 am concerned, I don't know how anyone else feels, but as far as my husband Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 36 and I are concemed we would not want to see that as an access road into whatever goes in there. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like testify? Would you like to ask your question? Cavenaugh: You all talked about the senior citizen thing, I believe what we are looking for here is the fair housing act, it is a federal violation to have an over 55 mobile home court. I think everyone is able to live there, man, woman and child. The problem arises is how are they going to control or have a strict adult park. Even if they do pull it off and there is some kind of federal loop hole that says okay, if it is in fact all 55, if they violate any regulations in the next 10 years, the feds will kick them out and they will be open to anyone who wants to live there.(End of Tape) Johnson: Bart did you want to come back up again? Ballentine: We (inaudible) retirement parks in Boise and everyone of them is very concerned about holding to the rules. In parks that are rented as long as they have community activities and certain guidelines they can hold their 55 or older status. And believe me most of the people that owns these parks bend over backwards to stay within the rules. They would rather have retired citizens than a mixture. Hepper: I have a question for you, the last time you were up you stated something about these were manufactured homes. Are these manufactured homes that sit on a concrete foundation or are these trailer houses that are pulled in on wheels. Ballentine: For about the last 3 years they haven't called them trailer houses, they are manufactured house to HUD specifications. They are built with 2 x 6 walls, windows, full installation, actually in some cases better built than some stick builts are. Hepper: Do they sit on a concrete foundation? Ballentine: They usually site on piers in a rental unit and are skirted so they can be moved if need be. Hepper: These would be single wide or double wide? What is the width? Ballentine: All doubles and new. Johnson: Becky are you ready? ~ ! Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 37 Troy Green, 2135 Ridgeview Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Green: Well, in addressing you tonight I just want to clear up some concems. The schools for one as you heard earlier, the proposal has been for a seniors park, obviously that didn't make the rounds earlier somehow. We are looking to put in 227 spaces, a rental park, addressing many of the concerns tonight through the CC&R's and the lease that we will have the people that come to sign. I am little overwhelmed by the opposition tonight only because 1 assumed that everybody would know that it was a senior park, obviously that didn't get out. Some of the stuff earlier seems like it was more towards the CUP side rather than the zoning, I guess that is okay. Alidjani: Are you going to keep your road private? Green: Internally, yes private. The main access is off of Franklin and it vents onto Meridian. Alidjani: Any idea about a dimension? Green: Dimension of the interior streets, 36 foot wide. Approximate lot sizes range from 6,000 square foot and some are bigger and some are smaller, but approximately 6,000. Hepper: Would there be sidewalks? Green: No, we are not planning on having sidewalks internally, only on Franklin. That is is unless you have other questions. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Green. Rountree: Yes, you show an access to Meridian Road via an easement, is that a done deal? Green: The easement is a recorded easement. Johnson: Any more questions? Alidjani: I have one more, I am just trying to go by my memory, there is one of those roads that goes off of SW 7th, I can't remember which culdesac it is, that is not a culdesac and is a true road that has been set aside a long time ago to go to Meridian Road, any idea if that is going to your property and if it is are you planning to continue on pushing that through? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 38 Green: No, actually I think there are 2 streets, we addressed those at Ada County Highway District and we would prefer them not to go through it seems as though Ada County Highway District felt the same. Because of the traffic travelling through the park they don't want it cutting off of Meridian and travelling through the park and create more congestion through there to get to the opposite side and vice versa. Alidjani: The only problem is if service trucks such as fire trucks there is no way they can turn around. The culdesac has not been designated at the time and will have gone through and if it doesn't go through it will be a straight cut. As I said I am going by my memory, there is one or 2 (inaudible). Bowcutt: I think I can address that, we discussed that at Ada County Highway District and since we are not going with public streets internally if we were doing public streets internally obviously that would be a subdivision of the land. Where this is a rental park these are private driveways. This was brought up in the meeting that Shari Stiles attended at Ada County Highway District they said that they would basically look at their policy plan and make an evaluation. If we did need to provide a turn around on our parcel for those 2 dead end streets, I have not heard back from them and I don't know if Shari has any information. They are aware of that and that was brought to their attention. Johnson: Do you have anything else to add while you are standing? Bowcutt: I apologize I had to leave the room, I have to hearings going on tonight, obviously I am not making it so I had to coach the applicant a little bit. One of the questions arose concerning the covenants, we discussed this at length, the client and myself, I told him one of the main concerns of the adjacent neighbors is the quality of the park, how people will maintain their yards, how they will maintain their homes, maintenance of common areas, streets and so forth. They are willing to basically write out and make a declaration of how they will maintain these areas go into this in more detail when I discuss the conditional use permit, but provide some type of rental covenants. The rental covenants would address maintenance of the units, maintenance of the yards, one of the things we discussed was the d'rfference in mobile homes as they have evolved over time. In the 70's they were flat top aluminum siding, the ones today are what they call manufactured homes. Many cities do not differentiate between the 2rf they meet certain standards under the manufactured home codes. The applicants have stated that in these protective rental agreements they wilt have a cause that the unit must be a 1988 or newer and basically that would dictate what type, what style and the quality that is going into the park. As we have indicated, they are planning a senior park, the question arose how can you do that. It is my understanding that when you are dealing with senior citizens you can do that, Silver Crest Estates is a very good example of that over in Nampa. My great- grandmother lives there, she is 90 years old, she has a manufactured home, she does not Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 39 own her lot, she rents the lot, or leases it. And it is seniors only, they have their own recreation areas, they have certain off street parkings, her 90th birthday party is this weekend at the recreational facility. They have pools, spas, etc. So these facilities are here in this valley. The demand has been quite great for these, they fill up very fast. In addition to Silver Crest there is a Silver Crest No. 2, there have been a couple of others that went in they are very nice and very clean. The issue came up concerning the traffic study, Ada County Highway District evaluated the Franklin road and Meridian Road area for future improvement. Their determination was that a traffic study was not necessary for this development they feel that they have adequate date and have in the staff report projected the anticipated number of trips per day generated by this project and therefore did not require one of us. Obviously the impact on the school district with the seniors park would be nil. Fencing along the boundary, we discussed that, perimeter buffering. The client has indicated that they would be willing to commit to with a condition of approval that they would fence the perimeter. We discussed various types of site obscuring fencing they are still mulling it around and a minimum would be a 6 foot cedar board fence. The R-15 zone was chosen basically because we had existing R-14 on the property. We have general commercial just west of us, just a little square of R-1. I have general commercial over on the east of us. And then general commercial south of us in this particular area here. Since we do have less than 6 dwelling units per acre, I guess 'rf this body felt that the R-15 zone was not appropriate or possibly be more palatable to the neighbors R-8 I think that zone would accommodate what we are proposing under the conditional use. That is something you may want to discuss with your staff. Did you have any other questions? Johnson: Any questions? Rountree: You mentioned the R-14 zoning, do you know what that means in terms of the county's zoning? Bowcutt: Yes, I use to work for Ada County for 2 years, it allows up to 14 dwelling units to the acre, it is a medium to high density zone. It allows multi-family dwelling units and I believe lots as low as 5,000 square feet or 4,500. Crookston: Is there actual R-14 development on the property right now? Bowcutt: No Crookston: So, you reference it, that is why you change those to R-15 because you had R-14. Bowcutt: It was just a comparable zone to roll into the same with Boise, if we have an R-8 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 40 property and we are annexing to Boise we will likely go R1 C which is a comparable zone. It allows basically the same type of development, the same number of units. Johnson: 1 will take additional comments. Randy Winwood: One of my concerns is that you are going to have approximately 500 elderly people there and if you do go ahead and let this development in we really need to think about the fire service. That is a large development, I work in Nampa fire department, we spend a lot of time in Silver Crest Estates 1 and 2. We don't have the manpower in Meridian Fire Department. I think that you guys know that we are growing at a very large rate before you start making these large development with elderly people like this. Thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else? Are there any comments from staff? Staff are you awake, are there any comments? Have your comments been addressed? Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman, commission members, my comments for the Meridian Mobile estates I think were just published finally today, and 1 don't think the applicant had an opportunity to view them. I will give a copy of this to Becky for he client right now. One of the things that does not exist in this part of town is sanitary sewer very close. There is no sewer in Franklin Road at this time and that sewer would be necessary for basically the portion of this project north of the Eight Mile Lateral. The sewer that would serve the southerly portion of this project would most generally be the Ten Mile Creek Sewer Interceptor and to get to that they would need to cross Ten Mile Creek itself. There is a possibility that some service could be obtained from Pennwood but I am not certain of the elevation there. So that is something that would have to be checked. The other comment that I expressed concern was the Eight Mile Lateral and what the plans were for that as it courses through the property. Whether or not a sprinkler system was going to be provided to the lots. A pressurized sprinkler system utilizing water other than the City of Meridian domestic water. And also the sewer and water lines and I did assume when I reviewed this they were private streets, sewer and water lines through the subdivision would need to have, the water lines through this mobile park would need to have fire hydrants located at appropriate spacing. And since they are private streets both sewer and water lines would need to carry with them a permanent easement for our use in maintaining the system and we of course recommend that these be city maintained sewer and water lines. I had a couple of questions concerning the legal description but I think these are things the applicant can address. Johnson: Thank you Gary, any questions of the staff? I am going to ask one more time Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 49 because I must have slept through something, if I were sitting it the audience I don't think would have a clear picture as to how you guarantee a senior park. Can anybody be more specific in that, how you guarantee that it will be 55 and older? Ballentine: The only thing that I can say is that you do have certain conditions that you have to observe, like over 55 years old. You have to have activities available for senior citizens that they can attend during the week. Johnson: How do you assure that, do you put that in a document, do you put it in writing? Ballentine: Right, and HUD inspects every so often or rf they get complaints that there are no activities for us, there are no facilities available and this sort of thing. But your owners are very careful to keep it as a senior park because it is worth so much more as a senior park than as it is as a family park. So, you don't let your investment go down the drain. Ad that is why people keep their status. Johnson: I guess I was looking for a comfort zone from a legal standpoint, I guess I am not going to get what I want. Ballentine: I think it is probably something that Becky can bring more information on and I don't have the legal documents. We work with it everyday and I see the paranoia of the managers and the owners making sure they stay within their parameters because of the investors. And that is the best way to protect yourself. Johnson: What I am trying to do is to anticipate the questions the City Council is obviously going to have and that is going to be one. Ballentine: 1 think that is something Becky should get you some regulations on. All I can do is go from the practically living end of it. Stewart Green, 2335 North 300, Twin Falls, was sworn by the City Attorney. Green: In regard to that question, yes it can be done. I know they are talking about the Fair Housing Act, it can be done through a legal document. It is one of the few discriminations that can be done legally and that would be provided prior to the City Council in a legal document. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else before I close the public hearing? Erma Lida., 654 Pennwood Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lida: I lived in the Coach Roayle Mobile Home Parkin Boise when they lost their right to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 42 be an all adult park. And that is exactly what is going to happen here. Also the Senator mobile home park tried to stay all adult but they had rigid restrictions limited any youth in the park to 48 hours. 1 want to know exactly what the rules are going to be. Also I think they need sidewalks if they are going to have this type of park. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Rackham: It occurred to me that in talking the discussions that I have heard there is a canal that goes through this area on the plat, is there not? Johnson: Eight Mile Lateral Rackham: If we are going to designate this a senior it would not be a problem for safety but if this were to become something later on maybe that ought to be addressed also to the sense that there is water there as well as irrigation. My lot is adjacent as I indicated earlier and there is irrigation laterals as well as the Eight Mile Lateral in that area. But that type of safety I haven't heard anything discussed or mentioned tonight at all. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, will the representative for the conational use permit like to come forward. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: This is a blow up of the site plan as you can see, we have our primary access on Franklin Road. This would be landscaped in through here, we have this rendering here Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 43 which basically would show you what that entrance would look like. They are basically proposing to have brick at the entry landscaping median with landscaping trees right through here and create a buffer with that green area there. As you can see on the site plan from the first unit to the minor arterial. We have a secondary access point right here which was the easement which leads out to Meridian Road. The applicant spoke to Mr. Bowers of Meridian Fire Department early in the process, he indicated secondary access would obviously be necessary. I think people have kicked around a couple of numbers, originally we submitted this with 245 units and then Mr. Green did revise the site plan early after submittal we supplied Meridian with a revised site plan. The application here is for 227 spaces, this is a conditional use application we have 91 guest parking spaces that are basically located in various areas of the park. That just basically adds additional parking for the residents if they have friends that come over. We also have an RV storage parking in here that will be used by the residents only for parking of their motor homes. We have a recreation building in this particular area right here. This is a covered picnic area, a pool and then a spa facility. In the recreation building they propose a kitchen facility, a bathroom which would serve as dressing rooms for the pool and then a lounge or gathering area where you would put couches or a conversation area so they can have various functions for the park members. The property as I stated earlier was 38.25 acres in size our proposed density is 5.94 dwelling units to the acre. The streets internally are private driveways, they will be the responsibility of the park owner. They have a 36 foot width and then the improved surface would be 32 feet of asphalt and then rolled curb on both sides. I have some pictures of Silver Crest Estates in my files that can kind of give you an idea of what that looks like. All the parking spaces that we do show here meet Meridian City's ordinance as far as I think your 9 x 19 dimension. The lot dimensions internally range all the way from 58 to 62 feet in width and then we have 88 to 95 in depth. We tried to keep them a little bit larger than some of the standard parks that you see in the area. The recreational building is approximately 4800 square feet. Then you would have grass and landscaping around it and them here is a little pathway here. We do have this lateral coming through here, we have talked to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and discussed basically piping that lateral throughout the project depending on exactly what they want when we go to design that would determine where those easements are and we may end up putting some micropass internally to provide an easement for the ditch or if we can work so we can run it along the perimeters. Since this is not a platted subdivision, it is just on platted ground and that probably would suffice. The value of this rec center according to the applicant's to construct that facility that you see there is about $350,000, I don't think somebody goes to that expense to put in a run down mobile home park. I know people have a stereotypical view of mobile home parks and there have been some pretty bad ones that were done in the 60's and 70's. The newer ones that I have seen, there is one off of Five Mile that was expanded and one that was manufactured homes. That was done in the later 80's and is a very attractive site. Very few people right now are doing mobile home parks, one of the problems is finding an appropriate area, compatibility Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 44 is an issue in some areas. That is why when they brought this project to me I saw all that commercial surrounding it, multi-family, light industrial in that area. The comp plan viewed that as a mixed use area, I said if I had to go pick a parcel I don't think I could have picked a better one suited for this. We do have some single family to the west of us and they have agreed to provide buffering through fencing or site obscuring facilities to basically buffer those people. You don't want to go into an area and make an enemy of the neighbors, no one wants to do that. One of the questions that I brought up was basically landscaping and irrigation facilities on the lots themselves. This is a stereotypical space layout where you see the manufactured homes sitting here and the concrete driveway that the developer puts in would be here. And the developer will go and basically landscape right here. We have discussed the necessity to put underground sprinklers through all the lots and they have stated they have no problem with that. In fact if you are dealing with senior citizens they are going to need sprinklers something that is low maintenance. As far as utilizing the water from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 1 would have to discuss with them what water rights the property has to make sure we have sufficient water right to supply water. I know Meridian is moving in that direction just as a lot of the other entities are to cut down on our aquifer use for irrigation purposes. The developers, I have indicated that to them earlier and he said we don't have a problem with that. 1 discussed earlier when 1 discussed the annexation about rental convents concerning the maintenance of homes and yards. I guess the best thing I can tell you is that we are going to have to draft something up and submit it to the City Attorney. I think I mentioned this before at other hearings, the City of Boise is a stickler for covenants, we have to provide them with covenants on almost every project. Especially when we deal with common driveways, common landscaped areas or maintenance of multi-family structures rentals, etc. The city's attorney reviews those covenants to make sure that there are provisions in there to that have enforcement power. One of the issues that was brought up by the developer platting this and somebody violated the protective covenants it is the homeowners responsibility it doesn't fall upon the City but the homeowners to basically enforce those covenants. They have to take them into court and say you violated the covenants you didn't plant 5 trees in your frontyard like the covenants say and we are going to force you to do it. That is very laborious but where we are dealing with a park that the developer has absolute control if someone is not maintaining their property correctly if they are violating the rental covenants therefore he can evict them and go through the normal channels that I believe will be easier than if it was owner occupied. As far as the common areas we have totally if we calculate in this landscaping on Franklin Road and on our landscape medians, we have landscaping here and here, we have a total of 2.14 acres of common area or landscaped areas. We are trying to create a neighborhood here for seniors and the property is off set from Franklin Road kind of tucked back in here with your veterinary clinic and your mini storage and various uses out there. You are not going to have all these manufactured homes, you are not going to have a 1l~ feet of mobile homes backed up to the public right of way. We are going to have it Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 45 tucked backed in there with our perimeter fencing, accessing these arterials. Now, in planning terms we discussed what is an appropriate use when you are dealing with minor arterials and collectors. Normally you will find commercial uses or multi-family uses located directly on the arterial. Then as you transition back, Fairview Avenue is a good example of that, if you go south of Fairview you will find manufactured homes, some mobile home parks, and you will find 4-plexes, apartments and then they transition into the single family dwellings. Which is basically a common planning practice. I think basically with that commercial wrapping all the way around this perimeter here that is what we are trying to do here is make a transition. Now, I guess some of the residents if they can give us some suggestions on what we could do to minimize any adverse effect on their property, is it value wise or visual wise. I think the developers are very open to suggestions. Johnson: I can give you one suggestion here, don't call them manufactured housing because we have a manufactured housing ordinance that is extremely strict it is basically an adoption of the Boise ordinance. Bowcutt: Is that where they have to be on a foundation? Johnson: Yes, and with garages and etc. Let's call them mobile homes. Bowcutt: We can call them mobile homes, but if you talk to a lot of people they say they don't use that terminology anymore. Johnson: We do in our ordinance otherwise we have wasted a lot of time here. Bowcutt: I will address that as mobile homes. One of the other things I think that I brought up was the fact that we do have some 4-plexes out on Franklin Road just west of us they transition duplexes then it transitions to single family dwellings. One of the questions brought up on these streets, Franklin Road and Meridian Road are both targeted for upgrade to 5 foot sidewalks is what is planned on Franklin Road and I believe Mr. Sales comments on Meridian Road it was the same. They are requiring that we either trust fund for them or they have the option of making the improvements on our frontage if the plans are complete. I talked to Steve Speiklemier of Ada County Highway District he indicated that their plans will be complete September and if they have completed plans we can go and make our improvements based on their plans. What they don't want us to do is to go in and make our own plans and then have to go in and match elevations on the sidewalks, curb and pavement matches. So, this area is targeted for a substantial upgrade as far as traffic is concerned. Do you have any questions? Hepper: Do they have garages or carports is that going to be a requirement? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 46 Bowcutt: We discussed that briefly and I think Mr. Green may want to address that. Troy Green, 2135 Ridgeview Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Green: We haven't totally decided on whether to have garages or carports yet. We are providing 2 spaces of off street parking for each unit and we had tossed around the idea of at least carports, but I am not sure that the people that are going to move in there want that specific thing. So, they are bringing their trailers into a rental unit situation if they decide that they want to put a carport up after the fact we may allow that. But this is not a purchasing type of a situation, they are not coming in and buying the property from us. Hepper: So at this point you are not making it a requirement for a duplex or a garage or you wouldn't be providing a duplex or a garage. Green: That is correct I am not providing and I am not sure if we are going to make it a requirement. Bowcutt: I told you I would show you a picture of Silver Crest Estates and this is basically an example of one of their streets out there, just pass that around. This particular picture is a recreational center and a mobile home park. Here is a copy of a picture of their entrance. Lastly, in your new Comprehensive Plan there is a page which discusses mobile homes. It discusses such things as a balance of housing types and opportunities for all segments for planning area populations. Since the cost of conventional single family housing has placed much of the new supply beyond the reach of low and moderate income families. And then it goes into various things like supplying adequate housing concerning mobile home parks. And basically putting these in areas which are planned for medium density residential uses. I guess our contention is this is an area that already has medium density uses such as the multi-family that you find out in that particular area and the existing mobile home subdivision and then even more intensive uses when you find the light industrial and the commercial uses. So, I believe we can comply with these provisions of providing a neighborhood which is attractive under this mobile home clause of your comprehensive Plan. I think we have provided information tonight that through specific conditions of approval we can satisfy other concerns that this body my have. Johnson: Are these part of the record or do you want them back? Bowcutt: Will they be passed onto Council? I had better take them back. Are there any questions? Johnson: Any other questions? This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 47 Andy Carter, was sworn by the City Attorney. Carter: Not to kick a dead horse I won't quote your little comprehensive plan and tell you how many times it talks about public input and how you need to have the public involved. But I don't think up to this point we have been provided really with any information to make any decisions. I am aware that you have another hearing but I also am aware that your decision making process is pretty much that you will make your decisions mostly on what you have heard tonight and the information that you have received from the applicant and that you will have your recommendations at the next meeting. I just think that we haven't had enough chance to comment on this. I would like to see something more on the order of a preliminary plat or something required since there seems to be so much concern on what they are proposing. I would like to see what their covenants are going to be and rather than saying we want to see it work and we want a nice park. I am sure they want it to be a viable concern but I would like to see it in writing and I would like to see what they really plan to do. Also, as far as sidewalks I can't see wanting to have a community for older citizens and making them walk in the street, that doesn't make sense to me. 1 know if they were a subdivision you would be either requiring or requesting them to put in the low pressure irrigation which would make their park much more likely to have vegetation in better shape then rf they were having to pay for the water and the restraints put on homeowners buying the city to water at not certain times. Johnson: Thank you, I would suggest to you that you stay with us through the whole process and you will get plenty of input and I believe you will get your questions answered. And down the road before there is any approval there will be a lot more for you to look at if in fact that approval does happen. Anyone else from the public? Doug Havelicheck, was sworn by the City Attomey. (End of Tape) Havelicheck: I represent Ruth Hunter, she owns 80 acres, the bottom part is on Waltman Lane. The back property on the north side runs all the way against the mobile home park. She has already had problems with a mini storage and it is a real eye sore for her. 1 wold like to see what kind of fencing is going to be put up, what kind of guarantees so that she can sell her property. I think this should be addressed to her because she has already been burned by the City of Meridian once. Johnson: Anyone else? Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward on this conditional use application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What is your pleasure? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 48 Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for Meridian Mobile Estates. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for Meridian Mobile Estates Conditional Use Permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RED CANYON CORPORATION: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is someone representing the applicant that would like to address the commission please do so. Lloyd Gerber, 3420 Shadow Hills Drive, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gerber: We are coming, we have purchased the old medical building on the corner of Second East and Pine which has been vacant for a long time as you all know. So, our intent now is to get tenants in there, do some cosmetics on the outside and go into business, that is business of renting that out to whatever kinds of tenants we can get, vocational schools or professional or retail. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions of the applicant? Not at this time we may have a question if the public comes up with something. Anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chaimtan, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application. Shearer: Do we need more specific, are we going to be an office or are we going to be retail. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 49 Rountree: The application I believe says professional. Johnson: We have a motion how far did it go, did we get a second? Okay go ahead then. Shearer: Okay, this is a little vague. Johnson: It is a little vague because he doesn't have his tenants lined up yet. Shearer: With this location it is adequate I would say. Johnson: On the motion, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the applicant is here please address the Commission. Ron Walsh, 12002 Fiddler Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Walsh: Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission we have a parcel of land there on Locust Grove that we have asked to be annexed and rezoned R-8. We think it is in line with the Comprehensive Plan and an area that adjoins Danbury Fair. We are surrounded by R-4 zoning, our position on requesting R-8 is that we feel it is a transition area between the R-4 zone and the higher density zoning that lies to the east of Locust Grove. The parcel is somewhat irregular so we feel that the lot lines, some of the widths and dimensions may fall below what is allowed in an Rte. We don't anticipate any density much higher than an R-4 probably right at R-4. We have sewer available we are working on access into Danbury Fair for the main sewer stub. We have good access and in an area that seems to be growing with residential. Any questions? Johnson: The obvious question is could you live with R-4? Walsh: With exception, my engineer would have to state that, with exception of some of the lot frontages I would say the density would be fine. But I am not sure that we can get, the rear part of the property has an angle to it and then we are following those 2 laterals along there. I am not sure that we can get the highest and best use with those dimensions. She might have to answer that. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 50 Johnson: I asked that question with obvious reason we have had an awful lot of R-8 and I know the Council is bent on getting R-4 whenever possible. Walsh: I don't think we would have a problem with the R-4 when it comes time to plat that we are going to request a certain percentage would fall below your 1400 square foot minimum that you are asking in most of your subdivisions. And we feel that this particular property because it lies so close to the automobile recycling lot and the buffer zone between the R-4 and the multi-family that probably won't command as high a value of home. So we wanted to tweak that square footage a bit on our final plat. I don't know that the density will go up any. Johnson: Any questions from the Commission? Hepper: I have a couple, if you with the R-8 would you have any duplexes or multi-family? Walsh: No, all single family detached on now single family lots. Hepper: And what would be the square footage minimum did you say? Walsh: I think they would be real close the minimum lot sizes, 6 to 7,000. Hepper: I mean on the house size. Walsh: The house size, when it comes time to plat that we would determine that but what we are thinking right now is that we would like to request a certain percentage of those be allowed to be 1100, 1200 possibly and the balance of them be 1400. We are going to be requesting a certain percentage of those be 1200. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: This parcel is a little over 12 acres in size, I am aware of the City Council moving towards the R-4. I did discuss that with the applicant, there are however several factors when you look at existing zoning and existing development when rezoning the property. And obviously with the R-4 zone the 8,000 square foot lot you are going to have a higher priced lot, an increase in the value of the housing but you may not be able to market it based on what is adjacent to it. If you look at, this is one of your zoning maps, this parcel sits right in here, it is this cross hatched area. It currently has an Rt and R1 strip running through it under county jurisdiction. We got the commercial out here, according to Shari that is going to be the new Intermountain Farm. We have C3 which is the auto wrecking yard right at the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview Avenue. Danbury Fair abuts us in here, this is all R-8 in through here. I took a good look at the homes as 1 drove in, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 51 they are on those 6,000 to 6,500 square foot lots ranging anywhere, some of those houses look like some of those houses may be as small as 1100 square feet, they look quite small along the perimeter. Being located this close to Fairview obviously you are not going to get the Meridian Greens effect in this area. So, basically it was our determination that the R-8 zone would be appropriate. We will have to basically convince Council of that but we believe that from a practical marketing prospective that the R-8 would be appropriate. We have not done a preliminary plat at this time we are basically in our conceptual planning stages. We will start discussing concepts with agencies soon and submit that at a later date. At that time we would address square footage of the homes and the lots. Do you have any questions? Alidjani: Is this true according to the map that between subject property and the junk yard there is only a creek? Bowcutt: There are 2 waterways, I have a little topog. Alidjani: What I would like to know if there is any land between the wrecking yard and the subject property. Bowcutt: I have an assessor map right here. This is our parcel right here and then here is that auto wrecking yard right there is follows that perimeter. I think Gary's comments were the legal description, basically what we submitted was the deeds of record showing the legal description of record. (Inaudible) Any other questions? Johnson: No, he asked a question about duplexes, 4-plexes are not allowed in R-8. If you want to ask questions you really have to come up and be sworn. Anyone else from the public want to come forward. Lanette Miller, 1332 North Penrith, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: I have a couple questions, I live on the lot 10 which the subdivision might back into a little bit. Ours is zoned R-4 and I would really like to recommend an R-4 zoning. My house is 1500 square feet in Danbury Fair not 1100. And I chose to be there because I like the lot size and I lot to have an R-4 zoning. Also the school impact here at Chief Joseph as we all know, I am an educator also is very high enrollment already. 1 have an irrigation ditch that runs behind me and also runs along part of their property line. We have had problems with tha# irrigation ditch already I don't know what they are going to do with that. I would like to see some fencing approved with this also. And I am not sure how it will affect the water pressure, but the water pressure in Danbury Fair is low already. And 11010 it is not X'd out 1 am not sure if that is their lot, I wondered what was going to happen with that. And streets, would they come out onto Franklin? I really think R-4 is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 52 important, I don't care if there is an Intermountain Farms there already I think R-4 is real important to the City and to my housing and I want to be able to get out of my house when I go to sell it. Thank you. Alidjani: I have a question, you mentioned you had a problem with irrigation. What kind of problem? Miller: Well, the ditch already between Lot 10 and Lot 11 the water pours into the ditch there the water floods our land already. I don't know the water goes onto our lot already. We don't use that water for anything. Alidjani: You have a problem with flooding. Shearer: Isn't Danbury Fair an R-8? Alidjani: Yes Shearer: Danbury Fair is an R-8. Johnson: It does have conditions. Linda Wyatt, 1473 East Drucker Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wyatt: I also live in Danbury Fair and I have Lot 11 and my home is 1700 square feet, so there are some larger homes than just 1100 and 1200 there. My main concern, I am glad to here that it is not going to be apartments because that is what we all thought. But main concern again is the water, we have no water pressure in Danbury Fair at all. I have to take 15 minute showers just to wash to my hair which you guys are all men so it is difficult to understand. Johnson: Especially for me. Wyatt: I have called City Hall and talked to them about the water and about my sewer bill being so high. And I was given the explanation that I am using too much water. I am using too much water because there is no water pressure so how can I fix this. I am not really getting any answers and if you put another subdivision right there that is going to tap into our sewer and water we are not going to have anything. Sometimes when I try to wash my dishes I get a trickle out of the sink. And there is not enough water there as it is. As far as the irrigation ditch on the back I am on Lot 11, and I spoken to Dennis Baker about this. And what has happened is actually a wastewater drain ditch. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 53 Johnson: Would you point that out please, on this map we can't read the numbers 10 and 11. Wyatt: When we originally, we were the first home to be built in Danbury Fair, and way back in May of 1993 we were told one of the reasons we could not build right away was because the Gity had a problem with the engineering company not being able to tap the irrigation water. When that was all done we started building in August, we waited almost 3 months for this to be settled. When we moved in the water behind us was turned off, there was no water there, so to us there was no problem. There was an irrigation ditch that had this drain water that was cut in half. Well, now in the summer time there is all kinds of water, we have a lake out there. I want to know what is going to happen to the water when they build this extra subdivision there. Am I going to have a bigger lake than what I have now? It is a problem. Also, I would like to talk about the schools, my child is in a class with 40 kids in it. Chief Joseph cannot handle anymore kids. Thankfully my kids are going to go to bigger school, soon they are going to go to Meridian School. On this side of Locust Grove is where all the buses come in the morning, is there going to be access for these buses, what is going to happen to the traffic there. Also, I would like to know if there is going to be a park area in this subdivision for these people to play. There was a park area put in our subdivision which is in the middle of the houses you cannot get to it. So, there are some questions I would like to have on this. I think it is great it is not going to be apartments. Johnson: Anyone else? Rob Powers, 1348 Penrith, was sworn by the City Attorney. Powers: Our first concern is a fence along the ditch line, your map doesn't really show this is actually a ditch all along here and then it comes clear back over here, this is just a small wastewater run off ditch. That could be piped in and a fence put in along here. I don't know is this shaded area just the area that is going to be developed? Alidjani: Also that triangle on your left. Powers: Because this, if you are looking at R-8, I don't know you said Danbury Fair is R-t3. My house is also 1400 square foot, so far I am the smallest house that you have heard from. Our main concern is the fence, if the fence gets put up first and you go with R-8 our subdivision has just been completed, there is really only one house that has anymore construction to go on it. We are done with all of the garbage that has been blowing around, a lot of garbage comes with construction and if you put R~ in there, you have 12 acres you have almost 100 units going in there. I am not sure how many units we don't even now that yet. If you have a hundred units going in there you have a lot of Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 54 construction debris blowing around. Our concern is the ditch and the fence first. Also, Locust Grove, right in this shaded area right here is really narrow, 2 cars can almost rub doors going through that area at the same time. You go in there you will have a lot more kids having to go out on that road and it is going to be a lot more congestion. What is going to happen to that, that is right now one of the main ways to travel to our own homes. Also a concern about the parks, this looks like a real good area for a big old park, there isn't one in Meridian as far as one over by the speedway. I think Meridian needs some more parks. That is about it, I would like to see something with a fence. I would like to get an answer on a fence and the repair of the ditch there. Alidjani: I have a question, is there a fence existing right now in Danbury Fair? Powers: There is a barbed wire fence existing which is on the other side of the ditch. Alidjani: No, in your subdivision. Powers: No, there will be as soon as I can afford to put one in. Johnson: Anyone else? Deborah Tisher, 1370 North Penrith, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tisher: My concern is what their proposal is for that ditch, that irrigation ditch. Do we continue to have it there, is there a reason for it. We draw mosquitoes, bugs you name it, it is terrible. Also the concern for the fence for privacy reasons between us and the next subdivision. Also, the construction materials blowing around. We are tired of cleaning all the trash. Also, I would like to know what is the proposal for the 110110 section, do you know what it is yet. Shearer: That is part of it, that map doesn't show it all. Tisher: So what we are being told tonight it will be all residential, or are there going to be duplexes? It is all residential. Johnson: Let me just comment on that because that has come up a couple times. This is an application for annexation and zoning so they are not required to come in and show us a plat. The reason for that is basic economics, you don't go through all the trouble of having it plated if you can't get the zoning. So we don't have any concrete plat in front of us as to where the homes are going to be. But what this body does and is able to do is we can place restrictions on development when we get to that point. I think that is what happened with Danbury Fair in terms of house size for example and no duplexes because Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 55 duplexes are permitted in R-B. So we are not to that point yet and I just wanted to clear that up. That is probably more of an answer than you asked for right. Tisher: How can we find out what is going to happen with that irrigation ditch that is behind us. Johnson: I can read to you the irrigation district's comments and they are just exactly what I just told. They said they have no comments on the annexation and zoning and when it gets to the plat stage, Jackson Drain courses along the north boundary of the proposed project. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District will comment on the Jackson Drain when the project is platted. So in other words that is their comment and they have jurisdiction over that ditch. Shearer: I think they are talking about that little ditch that runs down through and if that is on this property it will have to be piped. Johnson: Our ordinance requires a user ditch like that to be piped in other words tiled. Tisher: How come the developer of Danbury Fair didn't have to do that since part of our property goes into that ditch. Johnson: I can't answer that without looking at the file. Can you believe there have been several subdivisions since that one. Tisher: Also I would like to address the impact on the schools again, I have children that go to Chief Joseph and it is very much overcrowded. Johnson: We have heard that several times tonight, what is your solution to that? Tisher. Maybe impact fees on some of these developers like you give for the impact fees on the roads to put into the fund. Johnson: You need to talk to your legislator is what you need to do. It is prohibited by law at this point for schools. Tisher: That is it. Johnson: Anyone else? Comments Becky? Bowcutt: A couple of points that came up, I talked to Mr. Walsh he said we would be glad to meet with some of these neighbors that are concerned while we are basically laying this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 56 out conceptually. I would like to basically reaffirm the fact that this is the annexation and rezone tonight. I can't answer all the questions concerning the specifics. Concerning the internal ditches, those small service ditches obviously they have to be piped under the current Meridian Ordinance. I don't know the status of her ditch, so I can't really address that. I have been in contact with Settlers Irrigation District who has jurisdiction over the Settler's Canal, Troy Upshaw has indicated they will require 36 inch perms lock pipe for that ditch and we have got some costs on that and are fully aware of it. Concerning the Jackson Drain, I know they are trying to leave some of those drains open and provide some fencing because they serve to take that ground water and when you put them all in pipes it doesn't take the ground water in certain areas where high ground water exists. So, therefore when we get into our conceptual planning I will have to address that with Nampa Meridian prior to submittal and with Gary Smith on concerning what we have to do with that. Concerning the water, I think Gary Smith's comments indicate we will have to go up Locust Grove and get the water. Now, Danbury don't they come out of Fairview isn't that the same line. Now. Mr. Walsh indicated that a new well is proposed the property has been acquired at the Treasure Valley Business Park just west of us, will that be looped into the system to increase the pressure. Johnson: The answer is yes for the record. Bowcutt: Like I said I would be glad to meet with the neighbors before we ever come back before this body with a preliminary plat, sit down and address their concerns, discuss the plat. We do not propose any multi family in this. Johnson: Thank you, I am sure they will appreciate an opportunity to meet with you. Commission any comments or questions? Anyone else before I close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing then. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, does staff or anyone know what restriction were placed on Danbru Fair? Johnson: How is your memory. Not too good, we will have to took that up. It seemed to me we had some restrictions and I don't recall whether they were square footage or not. Shearer: I think probably the most important thing on this project would be that the smaller houses were away from Danbury and that the larger houses would be closer to Danbury and I would assume that is exactly what the developer has in mind. Hepper: Well, if we are going to place any restrictions shouldn't we do it now. Johnson: Well, often times the restrictions are in the findings. s ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 57 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on Pine Street Development, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN AUKER: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative for the applicant that would like to come forward right now? James Jones, 3084 Eastland, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jones: Good evening gentlemen we are proposing to annex 172 acres of industrial land into the City of Meridian. Mr. Van Auker is a well known developer in the valley. He has chosen the Meridian area because we believe that Meridian is a city with a bright future. We believe our annexation will bring to the city needed jobs and a strong tax base. I am open for questions. Johnson: Have you had an opportunity to review Gary Smith's comments dated July 11th? Jones: I have sir. Johnson: Do you have any comments regarding those? Jones: I do, I believe that we have covered all of the right of way in our application however I would be willing to work with Gary on the portions that he had a question about and I am certain that we could resolve the questions. Or if there is a failure we can supply that needed data. Johnson: Regarding No. 6, Jones: Yes, if you look at your maps gentlemen you will see that a portion of Union Pacific Railroad right of way had been included in the annexation. And it was my understanding that was to the benefit of the City by increasing your tax base by including that property. we had not included that property in this annexation that would not be an enclave. So that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 58 was sort of in the city's best interest that we include that because it was an opportunity to take it now. But that is the only enclave. We also have spoken with the parties that own that enclave they simply were not able to act quickly enough to comply with the requirements of the application. So, they are interested at some later date. We have plans to approach the Committee again with annexation in the future and we can probably include them at that time. Johnson: I am confused, Gary Smith, your comment is several enclaves. I believe you mentioned one. Jones: If you look at your maps you will see that 2 areas are marked not included in the annexation one of them adjoins the city property so that makes it not an enclave. They just chose not to annex. The other portion that is marked not included in annexation is this island which adjoins the railroad. And the railroad property is what makes it an enclave had we not included that our property this portion would not be an enclave it would not be isolated. Johnson: Anything to add to that Mr. Smith at this point? Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members the 2 pieces that I think 1 am referring to are the piece shaped like an L and then fronts on Eagle Road, city limits is across the road to the west. And the annexation of this property would in my opinion create an enclave of that piece which right now contains Coors Distributing, TEC and there are a couple of parcels to the east of that. And then the other piece that I was referring to I believe is occupied by Alberton's sundries center at the end of Commercial Court. One of the things that came up recently was a request by Jim Nelson and Doug MacAlvain who are building a building near the end of Commercial Court for extension of Meridian's water system. And service to that building that they are constructing and my comment to the Council at their request to connect to the City water and sewer service system is that this opens up water service to these other parcels and I believe the Council's comment to Mr. MacAlvain and Nelson was that they would like to see that parcel annexed into the City. And I believe Mr. MacAlvain even went on to say that he would visit with the adjacent property owners to see rf they would be interested in coming into the City because as these other parcels develop they are going to want to connect to City water which MacAlvain and Nelson are going to provide immediately. So I guess that was kind of the basis for my comments. don't know what the acreage is on these 2 parcels but they are pretty good sized pieces. Jones: As part of my comments, these parties were notified of this hearing and would have had opportunity to come forward and we have not heard anything and I don't know • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 59 whether the City has, but we have not heard anything form these properties. Other than Albertson's which we did approach and could not comply by the date that we wanted to submit our application, we have not heard from the others. Smith: That was the basis for my comments on the enclaves. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the Commission? Rountree: You indicated this was a request for industrial annexation and zoning. The proposal I have indicates a couple of other types of zoning, one was a technical zone, the other is a commercial general zone. Jones: That is correct, I mispoke when I should have included those others. We have made an arrangement with the Meridian School District for a middle school to be built in that portion to be zoned TE that is why we selected that because that is a permitted use in that zone. Crookston: Do you have legal description for those parcels that you want to be zoned differently? Jones: I believe they are identified in our application. There is one page which Gary caught which the legal description is attached to the documents for Parcel A when in fact it is parcel C. Even though the legal description is in the application it was put in with the documents for parcel A and actually should have been included with the documents for Parcel C. Crookston: We will need separate legals for the properties that you want zoned. Jones: Right, and I believe that those are in the application. I apologize that the application is not labeled more clearly so that this could have been determined by the Committee. (End of Tape) We would be happy to supply those to the staff. Johnson: Any further questions? Anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application? Chuck Lee, 600 North Edgewood Lane, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: The Meridian School District Administration is looking at a portion of this property which is annexation is requested. And the District Administration is in favor of this annexation and zoning request. Mr. Mabe, Deputy Superintendent and Rich Allison, Realtor has been in contact with the owners or his representative about purchasing a site. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 60 I believe it is about a 32 acre site in that neighborhood. Also, with the fact of the industrial development it would increase the tax base which would benefit both the school district and the city. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Pat Nations, 4010 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Nations: I am very against this annexation, my farm runs right along this thing and I am very opposed to it. I have a business, it is a horse business and I do not want this interfered with commercial. If I am not living there fine, I intend to move someday, I figured I had 2 years but this is growing too fast I don't have 2 years. I do not want my side of my property annexed to the city. I happen to like my well water, I happen to like my own sewer system, I am opposed to having that because if it is annexed we will have to pay for it. The way this map reads it goes along my entire property line and the whole back. My property goes to the railroad tracks and I am next to Mr. Mayes' property. So I have a very big concern with this interfering with my horse business as it is right now and my own privacy. I am sure the other land owners around there that are not included in on this, I don't want to be annexed into the City, I intend to be out of the City in the County wherever live. But as long as 1 live there now I really can't see having this annexed at this time. And would really like to have you look at this again before you annex it because it is an evasion of my privacy at the time being and it will be very interruptive of my horses. And that is all I have to say right now, as long as I have a chance to, this is just a hearing to try to annex it is it now? Johnson: We are just looking at the application for annexation there will be other hearings. Nations: This is all I have received in the mail, I do not understand a lot of it because I am not a surveyor. I just know my land adjoins the black line there and the back of it also. Alidjani: Can you show us which one is your parcel? Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else. Rich Allison 1108 West 4th, was sworn by the City Attorney. Allison: I have one question if I may 1 would like to know where the property is that the lady is identifying? First of all, I would like to state that Ron Van Auker has been very cooperative with the Meridian School district in providing property as a price the school could afford to pay to provide a new middle school in the future. I might also say that the • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 61 middle school in the future probably won't be built for at least 2 years and probably more in the vicinity of more than 3 or 4 years. But the school district is trying to acquire property as a point in time that the property is affordable so that at such point in the future they can build a school. Secondly I would like to say that Ron Van Auker by placing the school where he has placed or allowed us to place will enable us to hook into all major city services to include at least a 10 inch water line with sufficient fire flow to satisfy school requirements which are approximately 2000 gallons per minute of a constant fire flow of half an hour. Also other services such as the addition of high capacity power and collector status street which is future Pine street to be built which is required of a middle school as well to satisfy State requirements. Further a secondary entrance is going to be provided which we are currently working on and could be satisfied in a very near future. I just wanted to say that Mr. Van Auker has gone a long way in providing these services to the school district so that we could provide a school at this location. The other thing I did want to briefly address with regard to the lady's comments, in addition to the time element of which she was speaking. The school would be located immediately north of her property and would provide some buffer to the north. Thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Rich? Shearer: Yes, Rich, this property to the east of her property what is it zoned now in the County? Allison: It is currently a Rural Transition zone 5 acre. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Carl Hatvani, 3285 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hatvani: I just have a question about the annexation, I am on the comer of the south side of Franklin Road at Franklin and Eagle. I don't quite yet (inaudible) which (inaudible) to annex. Johnson: (Inaudible) on the corner, Eagle and Franklin on the southeast comer. Hatvani: I did have a question (inaudible) I have (inaudible) that goes across my property, and I haven't used it. I have been living over there for 15 years and 1 haven't used and ounce of it yet. (Inaudible) have a concrete file ditch with the water running through (inaudible). I have a basement house and every spring the water (inaudible) water backs up in my basement. I went to Meridian Irrigation District, (inaudible) I didn't get any answers and I didn't get any help. I would like to find out what I can do about that to either (inaudible). • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 62 Johnson: 1 really don't know the recourse for that at this point because the developer is probably long gone, but Gary is there any agency to contact that he hasn't already talked to? Smith: (Inaudible) Hatvani: They explained to me they are not responsible for user ditch. Johnson: It is probably a user ditch, it is the users that are in control of that. Hatvani: So, every spring I (inaudible) my septic tank about 3 times (inaudible) and 2 weeks later it fills up again and I end up having to put in a $2,000 (inaudible) field drain to try to bypass the septic tank. Johnson: I don't have an answer for you on that, are there other basement houses near you that are having the same problem? Hatvani: I am closest to the ditch. Shearer: If this property is annexed you can be annexed into the city and hook into the city sewer. Hatvani: (Inaudible) Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Mike Shrewsberry, 4619 Emerald Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shrewsberry: I just wanted to inform the Commission that this is just strictly for annexation and zoning of the property. The platting process, development process will take time, I would estimate anywhere from 18 to 24 months before this property would begin the development phase. Also, that speaking as a professional planner I do recognize the right of adjoining properties to agricultural pursuits. I will do everything in my power to assure that there will be no interference of these agricultural practices. We would minimize inconsistencies or any nuisances to the greatest extent possible as far as interfering with adjoining land uses and property owners intent for their own parcels. Johnson: Sounds good to me. Any questions? Anyone else? I will close the public hearing. Comments, discussion? We needs findings of fact. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 12, 1994 Page 63 Rountree: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for Ron Van Auker, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there anything else to bring before the Commission? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we adjourn. Rountree: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:59 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: . ~ ~ _~ IM J HN HAIRMAN ATTEST: f ,' '~~:,~Z-~ , WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK C!T'! Cs= ~AERiOIAN HU8 Or TREASUr^~E 1,'Ai.l.EY 33 csiST IOANO flllETdIDIAIeI, IQAIiG 83642 NAME: J U l 1 2 1994 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET CITY Uh iMCK1UiAV PHONE NUMBER: • ~. ~ Z ~ry /. / CiT~ GF ~AERi®IAIV FillB ~3i: TREJ~SUHE VALLEY 33 EAST iCAHQ~ ME£~iDIAN, 1dAH© 83642 NAME: ~ ~ J U L 1 2 1994 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET CITY UN iht'fiiUlkiy PHONE NUMBER: o -- ' `" RUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC. • 9550 Bethel Court ^ Boise, Idaho 83709 ey O SURVEy~ July Il, 1994 TO: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Ashford Greens 208!322-8992 ^ Fax 208t378A329 It is appazent from the hearing of 6-14-94 and subsequent discussion by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on 6-23-94 that clarification of process, required approvals, and ownership is essential. Process • Due to the fact that Ashford Greens will be the "vehicle" to implement the final 9 holes of the Cherry Lane Golf Course, the project was submitted as a PUD. • The application was for preliminary plat approval and did not, however, request either a conditional use permit or a variance. The PUD process is unclear, and due, to workload, staff was unable to provide direction on the appropriate steps. Annrovals. Two actions aze required before the full intent of this project can be achieved: • Variance (to be submitted to the City Council) - Dimensional standazds: lots with less than the 80' frontage required by the R-4 zone. (No lot will be platted with less than the R-4 minimum of 8,000 square feet.) - Culdesac lengths in excess of 450 feet. - Block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet. - Private drives for Lots 8, 9, 10 and 52, 53, 54, Block 2, per preliminary plat. - Flag lots: Lots 28 and 29, Block 8, and Lot 2, Block 9, per preliminary plat. • Conditional Use - A complete application for a conditional use permit will be submitted when specific development plans for the two medium density pazcels (Lot 56, Block 20, and Lot 5, Block 22 per preliminary plat) aze prepazed. - The Commission is requested to go on record that a density transfer from the golf course azea dedicated to the City should be considered in, and at the time of said conditional use application, when the specifics of a proposed project aze known. Meridian Planning & Zoning Page Two Commission members appazently did not have adequate information regazding the process by which the property for the Brighton/Boise Reseazch Center application was acquired. Brighton Corporation originally negotiated an agreement with Jim Fuller to acquire the development property surrounding the golf course with the stipulation that Mr. Fuller would deed the golf course property to the City. These negotiations were based on the original golf course layout which was accepted by the City as the master plan for the golf course in the late 1970's. About this same time, Boise Research Center, Inc. (which shazes a common ownership with Brighton Corporation) acquired 55 acres to the south of the Fuller Property with the intention of developing this property as a standazd subdivision at R-4 density. After reviewing the existing master plan, Brighton Corporation questioned the desirability and playability of the golf course layout. The fairways seemed much too narrow. After consulting with Mayor Kingsford, Brighton Corporation, at its own expense of approximately $12,000, hired Mr. Dave Peugh to consider alternative golf course designs. After further consultations with Mayor Kingsford and Wally Lovan, the current layout which is incorporated into this application was mutually accepted. Two of the golf course holes were shifted from the Fuller Property to the Boise Reseazch Center Property. Mr. Fuller agreed to revise the description of his dedication to the City to conform with the new golf course layout. However, the basic fmancial terms of the transaction with Mr. Fuller remained the same. The net result to Brighton Corporation and Boise Research Center, Inc. in the same acquisition cost with a loss of approximately 125 single family residential lots. In discussion with Mr. Wayne Fon•ey who was acting as the City's planning director at the time, the city would encourage such dedications to the city with consideration of density transfers. This application requests recognition of the density transfer to two blocks of potential medium density housing (such as townhouses and/or condominiums) which would cater to the empty nester or retired golf enthusiast. In conclusion, we request that the Commission recommend approval of Ashford Greens: subject to the granting of a vaziance by the City Council for those items listed above; and, subject to conditional use applications for the two medium density pazcels with consideration at that time for density transfer from the golf course property dedicated to the city through the Brighton Corporation acquisition of the Fuller and Thomas properties. MDW/bh/782.Itr • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PIONEER INVESTMENTS INC. BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNSRATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4, 3SCTION 6, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Jim Rees representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. The property is approximately 14.95 acres; the property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 1 owner of the property; the owners of record appear to be Leonard W. Evans and Doris B. Evans, James M. Rees and Eleanor V. Rees, the RAP Trust, the estates of Richard Melickian and Ara Melickian, and Carol I. Stiner; that James M. Rees submitted a statement that stated, "I James R. Rees, being a partner of the property description of which is attached, do hereby request that the City of Meridian annex this property with a zone of R-8."; that there is no evidence that the land is owned by a partnership, that Mr. Rees is a partner, and there is no request for annexation submitted by the parties who are the apparent owners as shown in the documents submitted with the Application. 3. That the property to the east is the Wheel Inn Mobile Manor, a mobile home court, the property to the north is James Court, a subsidized housing project, the property to the south is the Albertson store, the Cherry Plaza mall and other retail establishments, the property to the west property used for a day care and across Meridian Road is vacant ground; there are single family subdivisions adjacent or nearby; the land in the immediate area is not developed in any fashion other than as stated above. 4. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 5. The Applicant is Pioneer Investments, Inc., but know relationship was evidenced in the documents submitted with the Application between Pioneer Investments, Inc. and the apparent owners or any partnership. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE]CATION FF & CL Page - 2 application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. 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. 8. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8; that the Applicant also submitted a conditional use request for planned residential development to allow for a single family, zero lot line project and the Applicant stated that the project would contain 79 units with a club house along with recreational facilities for people over the age of 50; that some of the lots would have single family detached homes but the majority would be built on a zero lot line or as a duplex with each side being sold to an owner; that they have also submitted the conditional use request to allow a reduction in the frontage from 50 feet for a two family dwelling and for a planned .unit development; the Applicant also submitted a preliminary plat for approval which shows most lot widths being 42.5 feet. 9. At the hearing Jim Rees testified that there would be duplexes or O-lot line development; that they want R-8 zoning with 0-lot line development; that there were sewer lines that transversed the property that he hoped would not impede development that they have to build a bridge across Five Mile Creek; he commented on the desire of the City to have sewer line unfenced, left open and an access road along it; that the unfenced was no problem but the access road was; that they would like to landscape Five Mile Creek; and that they would like to fence the property BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE7CATION FF & CL Page - 3 except along the canal; he later stated that they could work with the City on access to the sewer line. 10. In the preliminary plat Application it is stated that there would be 79 lots, 5.28 dwellings per acre, that recreation easements have been provided for, that any recreation amenities would only be fore the residents of the area, that there would be a club house a recreational facilities, that there only be residential housing in the subdivision, that there would only be single family and single family )-lot line dwellings, that the minimum square footage of the lots would be 4,250 and the minimum square footage of the homes would be 1,200 to 1,500, that there would be garages of 4-00 square feet, that there would be landscaping along 5 Mile Drain and around the clubhouse, that trees would be provided and sprinkler systems, that there would be no multiple units but there may be two units attached, and that otf street parking would be provided in the form of garages and driveways. 11. The present zoning of the property is shown in the Zoning Ordinance as AP-2. 12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power; that such comments are incorporated herein by this reference. 13. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 4 that the Application generally complies with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan to provide a diversity of housing types and higher density near the downtown core; that she had additional requirements of the platting; that the stub street requested by ACHD to the north in the northeast corner appeared to be detrimental to what the Applicant was trying to achieve; that she had been contacted by many senior citizens that desired to move onto a smaller lot that will not require as much upkeep; that she recommended that the Applications be approved and that a development agreement would be required as a condition of the annexation and zoning. Gary Smith, City Engineer, commented that a legal description need to be submitted by a licensed land surveyor; that the sewer interceptor easement and sewer later easement servicing the Wheel Inn Mobile Manor needs to be unfenced and kept open with access road for maintenance purposes; the bridge structure over Five Mile Creek needs to have an opening sufficient to pass a 100 year frequency flood; that the highest seasonal ground water needs to be determined; that all irrigation/drainages ditches carrying water across this project need to be piped; and that proposed restrictive covenants need to be submitted. 14. That Kenny Bowers of the Meridian Fire Department commented that he had a problem with the "one way in and out" situation and that there was going to be a lot of traffic for that and that there should be no parking in cul-de-sacs. 15. There was one person from the public testifying at the BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE7CATION FF & CL Page - 5 hearing; Raleigh Hawe testified that he had concern over fencing in the northeast corner around the proposed clubhouse. 16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 17. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 18. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: "(R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative did not state that the subdivision would comply with this requirement and it is stated in the plat Application that the minimum size homes would be 1,200 to 1,500. 19. That Planned Unit Developments are allowed under a conditional use permit in the R-8 Zone (11-2-409 A.); that 0-lot line development is not specifically address in the Zoning Ordinance and the only reference in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance is in 11-9-605 F 4. and it only speaks to yard setbacks BRANDON CRESK ESTATES ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 6 and to easements. 20. That 0-lot lines are stated to one of the predominant housing types in the R-15 zoning district. 21. That in Comprehensive Plan, in the FORWARD section it states in part as follows: "Throughout the Comprehensive Plan update process, citizens reaffirmed that the goals and policies contained in the 1993 Centennial Year plan be based on six key values. Manage growth to achieve high-quality development. Enhance Meridian's quality of life for all residents. .' and in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, it does state in various sections as follows: 1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher-density development within the Old Town Area and lower-density development in outlying areas. 1.5U Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desireable, stable and self-sufficient community. 22. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Mao, it does state in various sections as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE7CATION FF & CL Paqe - 7 relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parka and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 22. 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. 24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 8 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." 25. 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." 26. 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;" 27. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rig hts 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 BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE7CATION F'F & CL Page - 9 recreation facilities." 28. 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 Desion Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 29. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF ~ CL Page - 10 Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant 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 BRANDON CREEK ESTATSB ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 11 agreement would address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property would be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as being in an Existing Urban Area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the specific plan for development and the requested zoning for all of the land is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Plan encourages higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density in outlying areas; being behind the Cherry Mall and the Albertson store and not being adjacent to any existing single family subdivisions or dwellings, the land is in an area that begs for development. BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 12 11. That the Comprehensive Plans policies to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents and to maintain compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, would apparently be followed as noticed by the total lack of objecting testimony as compared to the testimony from owners of property adjacent to the Applicant's development land objecting to the Meridian Mobile Estates Application, heard the same night as this Application. The area in which this land is located is close to the core of the City but has had few development applications, and this type of development in this area is beneficial. 14. That the annexation of the property is in the best interest of the City of Meridian and should be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED a~~ VOTED /~~~ VOTED VOTED BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 13 RECONI9ENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED:~~__ DISAPPROVED: 7Uf ~~~ BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 14 ~ i ORIGINAL BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PIONEER INVESTMENTS INC. BRANDON CREEK ESTATES CONDITIONAL USE A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4, SECTION 6, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Jim Rees representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. The property is approximately 14.95 acres; the property BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 1 is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of the property; the owners of record appear to be Leonard W. Evans and Doris B. Evans, James M. Rees and Eleanor V. Rees, the RAP Trust, the estates of Richard Melickian and Ara Melickian, and Carol I. Stirrer. 3. That the property to the east is the Wheel Inn Mobile Manor, a mobile home court, the property to the north is James Court, a subsidized housing project, the property to the south is the Albertson store, the Cherry Plaza mall and other retail establishments, the property to the west property used for a day care and across Meridian Road is vacant ground; there are single family subdivisions adjacent or nearby; the land in the immediate area is not developed in any fashion other than as stated above. 4. That the Applicant has also submitted requests for annexation, zoning and preliminary plat approval. 5. The Applicant is Pioneer Investments, Inc.. 6. That the Application requests a conditional use permit for planned residential development to allow for a single family, zero lot line project and the Applicant stated that the project would contain 79 units with a club house along with recreational facilities for people over the age of 50; that some of the lots would have single family detached homes but the majority would be built on a zero lot line or as a duplex with each side being sold to an owner; that they have also submitted the conditional use request to allow a reduction in the frontage from 50 feet for a two BRANDON CRSSR ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 2 family dwelling and for a planned unit development; the Applicant also submitted a preliminary plat for approval which shows most lot widths being 42.5 feet. 7. At the hearing Jim Rees testified that there would be duplexes or O-lot line development. 8. In the preliminary plat Application it is stated that there would be 79 lots, 5.28 dwellings per acre, that recreation easements have been provided for, that any recreation amenities would only be fore the residents of the area, that there would be a club house a recreational facilities, that there would only be residential housing in the subdivision, that there would only be single family detached and single family 0-lot line dwellings, that the minimum square footage of the lots would be 4,250 and the minimum square footage of the homes would be 1,200 to 1,500, that there would be garages of 400 square feet, that there would be landscaping along 5 Mile Drain and around the clubhouse, that trees would be provided and sprinkler systems, that there would be no multiple units but there may be two units attached, and that off street parking would be provided in the form of garages and driveways. 9. The Applicant has requested R-8 zoning in the annexation and zoning Application; that the R-8, Reaidential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R_81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 3 exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required; that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone, 6,500 square foot lots for single family dwellings and 4,250 square foot lots for two family dwellings, five feet of set back per story for buildings next to interior lot lines; 65 feet of street frontage for single family dwellings and 50 feet of street frontage for two family dwellings. 10. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Central District Health Department, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; that such comments are incorporated herein by this reference. 11. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that the Application generally complies with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan to provide a diversity of housing types and higher density near the downtown core; that she had additional requirements of the platting; that the stub street requested by ACHD to the north in the northeast corner appeared to be detrimental to what the Applicant was trying to achieve; that she had been contacted by many senior citizens that desired to move BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 4 • • onto a smaller lot that will not require as much upkeep; that she recommended that the Applications be approved and that a development agreement would be required as a condition of the annexation and zoning. 12. Gary Smith, City Engineer, commented that a legal description needs to be submitted by a licensed land surveyor; that the sewer interceptor easement and sewer later easement servicing the Wheel Inn Mobile Manor needs to be unfenced and kept open with access road for maintenance purposes; the bridge structure over Five Mile Creek needs to have an opening sufficient to pass a 100 year frequency flood; that the highest seasonal ground water needs to be determined; that all irrigation/drainages ditches carrying water across this project need to be piped; and that proposed restrictive covenants need to be submitted. 13. That Kenny Bowers of the Meridian Fire Department commented that he had a problem with the "one way in and out" situation and that there was going to be a lot of traffic for that and that there should be no parking in cul-de-sacs. 14. That the Applicant has requested R-8 zoning but the R-15 district is the only district that specifically speaks to 0-lot line development; that the use 0-lot line development proposed by the Applicant is not listed as a permitted use in Meridian Zoning Ordinance, but Section 11-2-407 D. 1. reads as follows: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DSVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 5 • ! Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to and compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional Uses."; that the Applicant has stated that he wants to use 0-lot lines, have lots with 42.5 feet of street frontage and his plat shows lot depths of 100 feet which means lots of 4,250 square feet. 15. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential Developments as a conditional use in the R-8 zone; that the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit development 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 desireable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section. 16. That sewer and water is available to the property and is required. 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 BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 6 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; and that the City has authority to grant re-zone petitions pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 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 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. 5. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Commission 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: 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 shall be designed and shall be 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 the BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF 6 CL Page - 7 access and traffic requirements of the City and the Ada County Highway District shall be met and if they are, traffic should not increase significantly because of the proposed use. e. That the property has available to it sewer and water service and the Applicant shall connect to such at its expense. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services if the Applicant meets the requirements of the City and Ada County Highway District and the use would not be 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 is required and the parking layout must meet the requirements of the City ordinance. 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 the City has judged this Application for a Conditional use permit for a planned unit development upon the basis of guidelines contained in 11-2-416 and 11-2-418 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. 7. It is further concluded that any comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, Planning Director, Ada County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 8 Department, shall be met and complied with. 8. That the R-8 requirements would not be met by Applicant's proposed plat or the Applicant's statement that the homes would have 1,200 square feet, but Applicant has requested this conditional use for a planned unit development. 9. A Planned Development is governed by the regulations of the R-8 district but 11-9-607 E states as follows: "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 desireable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section.", and since 11-9-607 A states as follows: "A maximum choice of living environments which allows a variety of housing and building types, which permits an increased density per acre, and which allows a reduction of lot dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements;" it is concluded that the conditional use for a planned unit development should be granted, that 0-lot lines should be allowed, and that lots of 4,250 square feet should be allowed, if the Applicant presents a final development plan that the City can approve and meets the requirements of 11-9-607. BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 9 ~~ APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~~ VOTED F_~r VOTED~~/ ,,,yyy~~~ ~~' VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit for a planned unit development with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to submit a final development plan and meet all of the requirements of Section 11-9-607 and all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED:) DISAPPROVED: BRANDON CREEK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE FF & CL Page - 10 • • QRIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING JOSEPH D. AND MARY F. da ROSA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 134 EAST PINE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Manuel da Rosa, appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described as a two-story home built in 1903 which applicant would like to turn into professional offices, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/da ROSA PAGE 1 1\ i • retail and related businesses, whereby keeping the home as a landmark in the City of Meridian. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of professional offices, retail and or related businesses which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10. as follows: (OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi-public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409 B. 6. 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/da ROSA PAGE 2 7. That sewer, water, electricity, gas and cooling is available to the property and fully operable; that Applicant would like to get the sidewalk condemned and is looking further into that with Ada County Highway District. 9. That the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Central District Health Department, and Fire Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 10. That City Planning Director, Shari Stiles commented to the parking situation in Old Town; that current Zoning Ordinance required adequate off-street parking; that as the City continues to plan the downtown core and work with developers to provide public parking facilities, the shortfall of parking should be alleviated; that for professional office space the required parking spaces would be six (6) and for retail space the requirement is thirteen (13) parking spaces; that in conjunction with a five (5) foot sidewalk and pedestrian ramp installation, seven (7) parking spaces could be made available adjacent to Pine Avenue and Second Street; that the existing irrigation system will need to be tiled to continue historical flow to downstream users; that the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit is the result of a lot of time, effort and money spent by the Applicant's to restore the 1903 residence. 11. That there was no testimony objecting to the application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/da ROSA PAGE 3 CONCLUSIONS ~.J 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; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian seta 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/da ROSA PAGE 4 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. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation moat be met and complied with. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements; the Applicant will need to apply for a variance regarding the off-street parking. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/da ROSA PAGE 5 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED `L VOTED A~ VOTED VOTED 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/da ROSA PAGE 6 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4, Section 6, T. 3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoninq Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing, 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 July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1 I~ annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is five acres in size; the property is west of Locust Grove Road and north of Doris Subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8 Residential development with 40 town houses in 20 buildings; that the Applicant stated that he would fence the entire area and that the fence would be constructed prior to building construction. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially; that the residential property to the south is in Ada County and not the City of Meridian and it is developed with 1/2 acres or larger; that the property to the north is zoned R-8 as is the property to the west; the property to the east is in agricultural use but has recently been rezoned to C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, and the record owners are Grant B. Richards and Carrol D. Richards, the Applicant has an agreement to purchase the property; that the owners of record must consent to this annexation prior to final action being taken by the City. 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 JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 2 C C~ Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is not for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is for 40 town houses in 20 buildings. 10. That the Applicant did not submit a subdivision plat or any development plans and the only statement at the hearing from the Applicant was that he was going to do town houses and that the development would be similar to one that he had done in Boise, at 1515 Siverton Lane. 11. That comments were made from the people attending for the hearing; the comments were as follows: a. Elizabeth Gwen testified that she was an owner in Doris Subdivision and that the lots in Doris Subdivision were 1/2 acre and larger; that she wanted the neighbors to be aware of the animal and farm atmosphere of Doris Subdivision; that she had a question on cul-de-sacs; and that she wanted a six foot screening fence. b. Dick Ross Testified ;that he wanted to know what the density was going to be; that on North Locust Grove Road he cannot =get out of his driveway; that there was too much traffic; that he wants a fence to screen the area; that the Applicant presented nothing to show what he was going to do. c. Jay Jones testified that he lived directly south of the project land; that he had moved because of the density and does not like the density that is being put up; that there are .75 of an acre in Doris Subdivision up to 3.5 acres per lot; that the developer has provided nothing that shows that the development would be restricted to elderly people; that younger people could move in with kids; that there was no public park in the area; that water pressure was low; that Locust Grove Road has too much traffic; that owner occupied is not guaranteed. JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 3 d. Tom Densley testified that he had the same concerns as Jay Jones; that he does not like high density; wants higher prices to keep his value up; that he wanted the application denied if at the same level of price. e. Don Bryan testified that he owned the property across Locust Grove Road from the property; that he had concerns over the R-8 zoning and it would be a good place for R-4; that he was glad about the fencing and wants the fence first prior to building; that he had concerns over access from Jerico; that he wants a quality project with lower density. 12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full by this reference. 13. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented, that the property is adjacent to existing City limits of Gem Park; that sanitary sewer and domestic water are available in Locust Grove Road and that some sewer may need to come from Willowbrook Court; and that the legal description included the adjacent one half of Locust Grove Road. 14. That the Police Chief commented that rental property needs more police services and that he would like the rental property to stay across Fairview Avenue and not in the middle of single family. 15. The Fire Chief commented that this only has one way in and out but that he had not problem with the annexation. 16. The Meridian School District's commented that children from this development would likely be bused to Ridgewood Elementary JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 4 rather than attend Chief Joseph Elementary which is the areas attendance zone school. 17. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 18. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 20. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 21. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two ( 2 ) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in detached houses in that zone; that the Applicant is not planning detached single family houses but he did not submit any plans for development. JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 5 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 25. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 26. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 6 Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 28. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 7 the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 29. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 30. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 31. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 32. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 33. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 8 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." 34. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as i by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 9 been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian, but the previous owner of the property retained a life estate in the property and she had concerns about the location of her house and access to Ustick Road. JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 10 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L, pressurized irrigation, and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 11 until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director if submitted, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled, if annexed, 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 proper and adequate access to the property is available and would have to be maintained. 14. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 15. That it is ultimately concluded that the lack of plans for development of the property that have not been submitted by the Applicant is of great concern to the Commission; that without such plans the Commission has no way of specifically determining whether the annexation and zoning is actually in the best interest of the City; that the area within which the proposed project is to be JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 12 developed is a single family dwelling area, except for the proposed development being done by AVest on the land in the northeast corner of the intersection of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue. 16. That it is also ultimately concluded that the Application for annexation and zoning should be denied, or that it should be tabled, with the consent of the Applicant, until the Applicant submits an application for plat approval, plans fox' the subdivision, plans for the type of buildings to be constructed, etc. 17. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does not desire that the matter be table and does not desire to submit the plans suggested in the paragraph above, the Application should be denied; that it is the recommendation of the Commission that the Applicant should be given ninety ( 90 ~ days to submit the plans suggested above; that once the plans are submitted for approval that the Commission could then analyze the Application for annexation and zoning better; that the Commission concludes that the Applicant should give the City notice of his decision to allow the tabling of his application and to submit the appropriate plans within ten (10) days of the approval of these findings of fact by the Commission, or this Application shall be deemed to have been recommended by the Commission to the City Council to be denied. 18. That if the Applicant elects to have the matter tabled and submit the suggested plans, it is concluded that the matter should be tabled and the hearing re-opened with notice to those parties that testified as to when the hearing would be re-opened JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 and heard again with presentation by the Applicant and an opportunity for additional testimony from the public; however additional public notice need not be given. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER CONMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) RECOMMENDATION VOTEDr,' / VOTED /~pJ~`"""Y VOTED VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that if the Applicant does not consent to having this Application tabled and elect to submit the plans suggested in the Conclusions and give notification in writing to the City of his consent and desire to submit the plans, that the Application be denied. MOTION: ,~ APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: JLG BUILDERS ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 14 • ~ ~?~ 'AL BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TROY GREEN & ASSOCIATES MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES ANNERATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NE 1/4, SECTION 13, T.3N.. R.1W.. BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN. IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Becky Bowcutt representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian ~, and the Applicant is not the owner of the property; the owners of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 record are David L. and Yoshie K. Nordling, James & Mary Ballantine, Arthur L. Troutner, Dennis E. Heeb, Paul H. and Ione M. Troutner, and Edward G. "Jerry" Jenkins; that the owners have submitted consents to this annexation, zoning and conditional use permit request. 3. That north of subject parcel the property is zoned C-G; south zoned as RT by the County and C-G by the City, and there is agricultural and commercial land; east is zoned C-G by the City and RT by the County: and the property to the west is zoned R-8 Residential, developed predominantly as single family residential, and is not eight units to the acre, but more likely closer to 4 units to the acre. 4. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 5. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owners are noted in paragraph 2 above and they have consented to the application. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. 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. 8. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned; that the zoning request is to have 38.25 acres zoned R- 15 Residential; that the present use of the property is for vacant agriculture land; that the proposed use of the property is for a FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 242 unit mobile home park with RV parking, recreation center, laundry facility and swimming pool; that the Zoning Ordinance, at 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A., states that Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions may be allowed in R-8 and R-15 zones as conditional uses; that Applicant has applied for a conditional use for a mobile home park; that pursuant to 11-9-607, Mobile Homes are governed by Title 3, Chapter 5 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that the Applicant has not filed the appropriate documents required under 3-502.2b. 9. The present zoning is by Ada County as R-14 (High Density Multi-Family Residential and RT (Rural Transition). 10. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Ada County Highway District, Central District Eealth Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Mayor Grant P. Kingsford and City Councilman Walt Morrow; that such comments are incorporated herein by this reference; that the Mayor commented that mobile homes represent approximately 138 of our current single family housing not counting mobile home subdivisions and that does not include current non-conforming mobile homes grandfathered in the City; that the Commission is knowledgeable of the fact that the City of Meridian has a significant proportion of mobile homes as part of its housing makeup. 11. The Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that the legal description needs to be corrected by a land surveyor such that the description reflects what is requested by annexation as FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 i shown on the map submitted or the map needs to reflect the description and that the adjacent one half width of Franklin Road needs to be included in the description; that the property appears to be contiguous to the boundary of Franklin Square Subdivision; that no sanitary sewer exists in Franklin Road which would need to serve a part of this property lying north of the Eight Mile Lateral; that the area south of Eight Mile Lateral will need to sewer into the Ten Mile Creek Interceptor; that a ten inch water main exists along the north aide of Franklin Road; that water supply analysis needs to be made to verify the City water system can provide water required for this size of development; he questioned, "What happens to the Eight Mile Lateral as it roars through this Project?", "What are the proposed street widths?" and "Are public water and sewer lines proposed in the private streets?"; and he commented that a separate pressurized sprinkler irrigation system needs to be provided utilizing a source other than City domestic water. 12. There were people testifying at the hearing: a. Andy Carter testified that he was concerned over the zoning; that there was a contractors yard near and that a 300 foot barriers as required to as a buffer. b. Craig Cavanaugh submitted a petition in opposition signed by 229 people from Stubblefield Subdivision; he testified that he had concerns over the impact on schools and the water; that he the wants the way-of-life that he moved here for; that an R-15 zone next to an R-8 zone was ludicrous; that the roads were not good; he had concern over safety for himself and his children; that he wants a study on ; how the development is to proceed and he wanted to see covenants before development; that there should be a buffer zone; that the R-15 zone bothered him; that the notice posted on the property was not adequate FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 and that only a few people were notified. He testified later that the Fair Housing Act does not allow age discrimination and if the law is violated the developer would be kicked out c. Mike Weavers stated that he was apposed to a trailer park and that many other people were also apposed; that he had concern over police, fire, traffic and schools as a result of this development; he questioned whether the mobile homes would be owned or rented and whether there would be a buffer zone; that he did not want the R-15 zone but comparable zoning and that he desired lower density. d. John Labbe testified that the R-15 zone had too high of an impact on the achools; that there would be water depletion and that he desired further investigation of the project. e. Bart Ballantine stated that he was a realtor for the seller of the property to the Applicants; that it was going to be a senior's mobile home park and there would be no school problem and seniors prefer manufactured housing; that there would be screening and fencing; that there would be low service costs for the City and low domestic violence. He testified later you can have a 55 or over restriction; that there would be manufactured houses and that they would all be double wide and new. f. Randy Winewood testified that he had the same concerns as those who had already testified in opposition; that he had a problem with the kids being on Franklin Road; that traffic would be bad; and that he did not want more density than R-6. He later testified that fire protection was of one of his concerns with the number of elderly people that would be occupying the park g. Lawrence Rackham testified that he shared the opposition testimony that had been presented regarding the density. h. Lloyd Bone stated that he was a realtor for the Applicants and that the concerns that had been presented would be answered by Becky Bowcutt and the fears resolved. i. Ruth Hunter testified that the land adjoins her land to the south; that she had agricultural uses and that she does not like the storage sheds that in the area already; that she wants a fence and berm; that she is selling and that her value would go down as a result of this development. FINDINa3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 j. Susan Kelly testified that she had lived in her home for six years near this property; that the development would be garbage and would lower her value. k. Jim Ballentine an owner of the property stated that he purchased the property twenty years ago; that he shared some of the concerns presented but that this was going to be retirement mobile home space and he was in favor of that; that people needed a low price retirement area. 1. Chuck Leihe testified that he represented the Meridian School District and that he wanted the developers to assure that the mobile home park would be for the elderly. m. Carried Wade questioned whether the Applicant could discriminate and only offer these units to elderly people and not people of all ages. n. Doug Danielson testified that he was in agreement with the opposition and he has a question on the procedure. o. Christine Mace testified that she knew that this land would be developed and she applauds a senior park; that she question the R-15 zoning; that she does not want Pennwood and Barrett streets to be continued and go through. 13. That the Applicants representative, Becky Bowcutt, stated at the beginning of the hearing that there was 38.25 acres of land involved; that the land was now zoned R-14 by the County and that they were requesting zoning of R-15; that there would be a density of 5.94 per acre; that the Comprehensive Plan states that this is a mixed use area. She later testified that there would be private driveways; that the rental covenants would address maintenance of the units and of the yards; that the units would have to be newer than 1988; that the park would be a senior citizen mobile park; that Ada County Highway District had determined that a traffic study was not necessary; that the impact on the schools would not be there because it was a senior park; that the perimeter would be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 fenced; that the R-15 was chosen because the property was already zoned R-14 by the County; that if the Commission felt that R-8 was more appropriate that that would be alright with the Applicant. That there are statements in the Comprehensive Plan about areas along Franklin Road being in Mixed Plan Use Areas; that the Generalized Land Use Planning Map does depict the proposed annexation land as being in a mixed planned use area; that mixed planned use does not necessarily mean high density. Stewart Green testified for the Applicant that the Applicant would furnish a legal document for the city Council that would show that they could limit the age requirements for the park. 14. That there was no indication that the Applicant was providing any park land or school sites as part of the development or other amenities, other than for the proposed senior residents. 15. That in Comprehensive Plan, in the FORWARD section it states in part as follows: "Throughout the Comprehensive Plan update process, citizens reaffirmed that the goals and policies contained in the 1993 Centennial Year plan be based on six key values. Manage growth to achieve high-quality development. Enhance Meridian's quality of life for all residents. .' and in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, it does state in various sections as follows: 1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher-density development within the Old Town Area and lower-density development in outlying areas. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 1.5U Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable, stable and self-sufficient community. 16. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state in various sections as follows: 2.2U Support strategies for the development of neighborhood parks within all residential areas. 2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 17. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan Man, it does state in various sections as follows: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 18. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 20. That the R-15 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: "(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums."; 21. That this proposed development does not abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor 22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 23. 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. 24. 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." 25. 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." 26. 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;" 27. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA1P Page 30 a ~ 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." 26. 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. 29. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 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 with the consent of the titled owners, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 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 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 would address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property would be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as being in an Existing Urban Area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the specific plan for development and the requested zoning for all of the land is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the Meridian Comprehensive Plan does not indicate that the area is a Mixed Planned Use Development area, but even if it did, that does not necessarily mean a high density area. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates in the RESIDENTIAL POLICIES that the City is to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, and encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods; that it is concluded that the proposed development would not protect and maintain the residential neighborhood values in Franklin Square Subdivision or improve its condition. 11. That it is concluded that the property requested to be zoned R-15 does not abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor; that therefore the zoning of the property as R-15 does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and such zoning would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian. 12. That it is concluded that the Comprehensive Plan encourages new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher-density development within the Old Town Area and lower-density development in outlying areas; that this property is not in the Old Town Area and the R-15 zoning is not appropriate. 13. That the Comprehensive Plans policies to protect and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents and to maintain compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, would not be followed as noticed by the content and amount of testimony objecting to the application from the residents that testified that were from the residential subdivision to the west of the subject property. 14. That the annexation of the property at this time, with the type of proposed development would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian and should be denied. 15. It is further concluded that no specific findings of fact or conclusions need be made on the application for conditional use since if the annexation and zoning are denied the Applicant could not apply for a conditional use from the City of Meridian on land that is not included in the City limits, but even if facts and conclusions are required it is sufficient to say that the conditional use should be denied for failure to file any of the required documents required under 3-502.2b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. APPROVAL OF FINDIN(~8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW VOTED~``~ LL VOTEDI~ ~' VOTED Page 15 i COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property should not be annexed and zoned, and due to this recommendation these findings of fact or conclusions of law on the application for annexation and zoning should be considered to be the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for a conditional use for a mobile home park, because if the land is not annexed and zoned, there is no ability to grant a conditional use, and the conditional use would have been recommended to be denied for failure to meet the requirements of 3-502.2b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED:~2 DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16 ~ • QR!~I~IAL. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LLOYD GERBER RED CANYON CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EAST 2ND STREET AND PINE STREET (OLD MERIDIAN MEDICAL) MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 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 Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 1 RED CANYON CORPORATION 1~ 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for professional offices and record storage which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is deacribed in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10. as follows: (OTl Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi-public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409 B. 6. That there are properties across E. 2nd Street which are used for commercial purposes; that the Masonic Lodge is to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 2 RED CANYON CORPORATION south; that there is an application to use the property kitty- corner to the subject property for offices. 7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 8. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. 9. That the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Central District Health Department, Fire Department, and Ada County Highway District have submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 10. That City Engineer, Gary D. Smith commented to the parking and the ordinance requirements of one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for professional offices and one space per 200 square feet for retail; that the plan submitted appears to show 26 spaces plus six (6) garage spaces; that if the floor area is retail, the spaces provided appear to be adequate; that landscaping and lighting, etc. shall be in accord with ordinance requirements; that sewer and water reassessments will be made to reflect existing or projected use of water. 11. That City Planning Director, Shari Stiles commented the conditional use permit is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that the sidewalks are deteriorated; that improvements are needed on the north and west sides of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 3 RED CANYON CORPORATION property; that ACRD will allow diagonal parking along Pine Avenue as long as a license agreement with the District is entered into so parking may be removed when Pine Avenue is widened. 12. 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; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 4 RED CANYON CORPORATION 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 uae 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 PAGE 5 RED CANYON CORPORATION 5. That the comments of the City Engineer and Ada County Highway District must be met and complied with. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL G~~ HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED J/~~ VOTED "L /7 COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED_L/~ CHAIRMAN JOENSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED 7V~/``__ DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 6 RED CANYON CORPORATION • / • MOTION: APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 7 RED CANYON CORPORATION • • ORlGlI~~n BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT ANNEXPITION AND ZONING NE 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 7, T. 3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Ron Walsh, 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 July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT ~~ reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 12.46 acres in size; the property is south of Fairview Avenue and West of PQSf Locust Grove Road,.wes~ of the Danbury Faire Subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-1 Estates Residential and (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8 Residential type development; that the Applicant states they could live with R-4 zoning but would like R-8 for other purposes; that some houses would fall below the 1,400 square feet required by the R-4 zone; that if the zoning is R-8 there would only be single family dwellings; that they want some house sizes to be 1,100 and 1,200 square feet and the rest would be 1,400 or over; that it would be in line with Danbury Faire subdivision; that they do not anticipate any higher density than that allowed by R-4. That Becky Bowcut appeared for the Applicant and stated that Danbury Faire was R-8 and that R-8 was appropriate because of the area; that the land was not adjacent to the wrecking yard 4. The general area surrounding the property is used residentially with an automobile wrecking yard nearby; that the residential property is developed in the R-8, Residential fashion;. that the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 5. That the Commission received testimony at the public hearing; that the testimony was basically as follows: a. Lynette Miller testified that she lives in Danbury Faire Subdivision and she stated that her lot was zoned R-4 and she has 1,500 square feet; that the impact on schools is to high; that the irrigation ditch is a problem and that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT she wants fencing; that she has a flooding problem. b. Linda Wyatt testified that she lived in Danbury Faire and her home is 1,700 square feet and that there are some larger homes than just 1,100 and .1,200 square feet in Danbury; that her main concern was the water pressure because there was no water pressure and another subdivision would cause further problems; that the schools were also of great concern; she also question whether there was going to be park area. c. Rob Powers testified that he wanted a fence along the ditch line; that his house was 1,400 square feet; that he wants a fence to protect from trash; that it was good .area for a park; he had concerns over the ditch and if any fencing was going to be required; he also stated that Locust Grove Road was very narrow and that this subdivision would just cause traffic problems. d. Deborah Tisher testified that she wanted to know what their proposal for the ditch was; she also wanted a fence for privacy and to prevent trash from blowing around; ehe also stated that she had concerns over the schools and thought that impact fees should be required. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owners are Joe and Aline DeNardi and Rebecca L Petritia; that the owners have submitted a request and consent to this Application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is for agriculture and residences; that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision but not subdivision FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT application was submitted. 10. That comments were received from the Fire Department, Police Department, Meridian School District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, and the Meridian Planning Director and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, commented that the Applicant needs to provide a legal description that describes the property proposed for annexation; that it is assumed that an easterly portion of this parcel can sewered by Applicant's extension of the existing sewer in Locust Grove Road but the remainder of the parcel will need to sewer to the west in Danbury Subdivision; that water service can be provided by Applicant's extension of the water line in Locust Grove Road. 12. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. That the property can be physically serviced with City FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT water and sewer. 16. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision would be in line with Danbury Faire, an R-8 subdivision adjacent to the land in question. 17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 22. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 23. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 24. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was that this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all three schools; that before they could support this subdivision, land needs to be dedicated to the district or at least made available for a school site in this area; that the site would need water and sewer service available. 25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 29. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 PINE STREET DEV1'sLOPMENT 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1963). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Meridian Planning Director and of the Ada County Aighway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. .That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 14. That in the R-8 zone the house size is required to be 1,300 square feet unless smaller house are interspersed within the subdivision as allowed in 11-2-411 D; that it is concluded, however as a condition of annexation that there shall be no houses smaller than 1,200 square feet, that 258 of the houses may be between 1,200 and 1,300 square feet, and the rest of the houses shall meet the 1,300 square foot minimum; and that homes smaller than 1,300 square feet shall not be located to be adjacent to Danbury Faire Subdivision. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall not be annexed; that if the Applicant does not consent to these conclusion in writing prior to the City Council hearing it is concluded that the property should not be annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant does not consent to these Conclusions and does not give his consent in writing prior to the City Council hearing, it is recommended that the property not be annexed. MOTION: .APPROVED : DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT • ~ QR"~!~IAL BEFORE TBE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN RORALD VAR AUCRER ANNERATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF TBE SW 1/4 AND TBE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9, T. 3.N. R 1 E BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY IDABO MERIDIAN, IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that James R. Jones representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the July 12, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 1`~- approximately 172 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as M-1 Industrial; and RT Rural Transition residential; that the Applicant requests that portions of the property be zone TE Technical District, I-L Light Industrial and C-G General Retail and Service Commercial; that no specific uae for the property was presented but it was stated that it would be platted later. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used for industrial, warehousing and agricultural uses. 5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That Ronald VanAucker is the Applicant; that Applicant does not own all of the land; that the other owners are Oren C. Mayes and Carmen J. Mayes, 4M Leasing/Canvest, an Idaho Partnership, Franklin-Eagle Joint Venture, VJ Joint Venture, and G/D Partners, an Idaho General Partnership and they have consented to the application and have requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. Ada County Highway District (ACRD), Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Shari Stiles, Meridian planning Director, Central District Health Department, Idaho Power and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 8. Chuck Leihe of the Meridian School submitted comment at the hearing that the School District was looking for a 32 acre parcel for a school and the Applicant was also interested in a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 ~~ school in the area; that Mr Jones had indicated that the Applicant had made arrangements with the School District that a middle school would be build in the area. 9. There were property owners in the area of the proposed annexation that appeared and testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing to make comments on the application a. Pat Nation was against the annexation because it was adjacent to her farm and she likes her well and the sewer facilities that she now has and was not interested in City service; that development in the area would interfere with the horses that she raises; that she wanted to be in the county and not the city and that the annexation would not be good for her privacy or her horses. b. Rich Allison testified that Mr. VanAuker had been co- operative with providing fairly priced land for the School and that school land would provide a buffer for Mrs. Nation. c. Carl Hatvani testified concerning the ditch problems that he had had in the area. d. Mike Shrewsberry testified that he wanted the Commission to know that this was only an annexation and that platting would be some time later and that there would be no interference with agricultural practices. 10. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer and water lines will have to be extended to the property by the Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a substantial amount of growth; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots, commercial, and industrial uses. 14. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: A. Under the LAND, GENERAL POLICIES, section commencing at page 22, it states: Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable and self- sufficient community; and under the INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, it states in part as follows: 3.1 Industrial development within the urban service planning area should receive the highest priority. 3.4 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.5 Industrial areas should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation and services facilities. 3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge water can be properly treated or pre-treated to eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive industrial runoff. 3.10 Industrial uses should water supply and water fire protection. be located where adequate pressure are available for and under the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area is stated as follows: 3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the development of a Technological park and compatible light industrial uses within the proximity of the Idaho Foreign Trade Zone. 3.17 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote light industrial development in the Eastern Light Industrial Review Area. B. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 15. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area. 16. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G), Technical District and Light Industrial districts are defined in the zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows: (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. (TE) Technical District: The purpose of the (TE) District is to permit and encourage the development of a technological FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 park, including research and development centers, vocational and technical schools and compatible manufacturing, and wholesale business establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous materials and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate an area of adequate size to accommodate present and future compatible needs on lands which are relatively free of improvements, well suited for such use because of location, topography, access and utility service potential, and relationship to other land uses could render the district infeasible for its intended use. The District must have direct access on two (2) or more transportation arterials or collectors, designed to convey large volumes of traffic through non-residential areas to major highways and thoroughfares. It must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian for domestic requirements. The district is further designed to act as a buffer between industrial and highway uses and other less intensive business and residential uses, and to provide an environmentally pleasing, safe and aesthetically pleasing employment center for the community and the region. (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 17. That in 1992 the Idaho 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 State FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in development 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 business and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in commercial and industrial development is bringing in more population and 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, and the housing for that 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; that the increase in commercial and industrial which might locate in this annexation would be helpful. 18. 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 lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 19. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 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." 20. 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." 21. 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;" 22. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 23. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 24. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 25. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and 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 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 3. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the 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 with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls. 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 pressurized irrigation. 10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the 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 City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its intentions for development, which is of concern to the Commission; it is therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and zoning, that any use or development of the property shall only be allowed as conditional uses. 13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it as requested but once the property was zoned the Applicant could place many different uses on the property without additional approval from the City other than building permits, which limits the control that the City should have over the development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue, in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to insure neighborhood compatibility, that such limitation, should also apply to the land in the area where the property is located, and since the City should have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land is conditioned on being developed as a Commercial or industrial Planned Development or under the conditional use permit process. 15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), Light Industrial (I-L) or as Technological District (T-E), as requested in the Application, but shall only be capable of being developed as a planned commercial development or under the conditional use permit process. 16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning 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, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11- 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. R, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services. 4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. 8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing development. 10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 11. Addressing the comments from the City Staff, applicable at the time of annexation and zoning or at the time of development. 12. The sewer and water requirements. 13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development. 14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff, including design review of all development, and conditional use processing as required under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states in part as follows: "If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. If a commitment is required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. ."; that since the above section states that the development agreement FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the parcel and since no development agreement has been agreed on, or even discussed, it is concluded that the development agreement is information that the City Council needs prior to the final action on the annexing and zoning applications, which is the annexation ordinance, however, it has been stated that platting would not be done for approximately eighteen months and the land shall be subject to de-annexation if acceptable development agreements are not agreed upon after the annexation ordinance is passed. 18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it is concluded that the property may be de-annexed if appropriate development agreements are not agreed on and executed by the City. 19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement. 20. 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 pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer, at its expense, and resolve how the water FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 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 and the development agreement. 22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning as requested in the Application would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall be de-annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINOS 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 COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) RECOMMENDATION VOTED VOTED ~ i VOTED // VOTED U~^I'~ VOTED (VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15 the application be conditions set fort Law, including tht agreement or that t] not agreeable with not agreeable with property should not MOTION: approved for annexation and zoning under the i in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of t the Applicant enters into a development e land be de-annexed; that if the Applicant is these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is entering into a development agreement, the be annexed. APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16